Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Pelosi's support of John Murtha for House speaker was based on principle, but you wouldn't know it from the mainstream media's accounts.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Media Miss the Point on Pelosi's Endorsement

By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Posted November 21, 2006.


Pelosi's support of John Murtha for House speaker was based on principle, but you wouldn't know it from the mainstream media's accounts.
Advertisement

The only thing surprising about the current mainstream media narrative regarding Nancy Pelosi is its relentless predictability. Practically since the day the Iraq war started to go bad, Democrats have been derided in the press for not having a plan, and choosing pragmatism over principle.

Cut to '06. Hot on the heels of an electoral triumph, Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi endorses as Majority Leader the member of the House most identified with speaking out against the war -- the man whose courage in doing so fueled the nationalized campaign that gave Democrats the majority in the first place. I'm speaking, of course, about Jack Murtha.

Murtha then loses the Leadership race to Steny Hoyer. As Pelosi no doubt knew, it was an uphill battle from the beginning -- Hoyer had been tirelessly campaigning for the job among Democratic caucus members for months. But Pelosi gave her support to Murtha because, as she put it in the title of her blog this week on HuffPost: "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker."

It doesn't get much clearer or more principled than that.

So what's been the reaction in the media?

According to the Los Angeles Times, Pelosi is off to a "rocky start," while the New York Times says she's "tempting disaster."

Disaster? If wanting to give a high-profile platform to the man most responsible for his party finally locating its spine regarding Iraq (and who, for his troubles, received the full brunt of the Bush/Rove/Mehlman slime machine) is a "disaster," what word do you use to describe the war itself? Disast-orrfic? Catastro-bacle-aster? Disaster-to-the-10th-power?

Maureen Dowd joined the bash-Pelosi-bash with a column entitled "Squeaker of the House," writing:

"Nancy Pelosi's first move, after the Democratic triumph, was to throw like a girl. Women get criticized in the office for acting on relationships and past slights rather than strategy, so Madame Speaker wasted no time making her first move based on relationships and past slights rather than strategy... Ms. Pelosi offered an argument along the lines of: John Murtha's my friend. He's been nice to me. I don't like Steny. He did something a long time ago that was really, really bad that I'm never, ever going to tell you. And I'm the boss of you. So vote for John."

Really? I don't recall Pelosi ever saying -- or even implying -- anything of the kind. Again, how much clearer could Pelosi be than "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker"? If ending this disastrous war (and I'm using the term in its true sense and not its New-York-Times-editorial sense) doesn't qualify as "strategy" then what does?

In their editorials this week, both the LA Times and the New York Times chided Pelosi for even considering not installing California Congresswoman Jane Harman as the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, a point also raised by Dowd:

"Everyone in Washington was perplexed at Ms. Pelosi's ham-handed effort to sabotage not only Mr. Hoyer but her former friend and fellow Californian, Jane Harman."

Wait, so first Pelosi is criticized for "making her first move based on relationships," and then she's criticized for not giving a chairmanship to a "former friend and fellow Californian?"

So damned if you do, damned if you don't.

As for the wisdom of "everyone in Washington," well, a walk around Baghdad should suffice as rebuttal.

I'm surprised that seniority as the be-all qualification for leadership still has so many ardent backers in Washington. Pelosi has made it clear that the highest priorities of the new Congress will be changing course in Iraq and the restoration of oversight. It is by these two yardsticks that she needs to decide who the Chair of the Intelligence Committee should be. And by nothing else.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a Democratic leader who would rather listen to the American people than to "everyone in Washington"?

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: pelosi, mainstream media, democrats

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Pelosi
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 21, 2006 1:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an easy one: Huffington and Pelosi are right and Dowd and the media are wrong. It's easy to explain why the media is down on Pelosi: they have a new punching bag and lots of corporate money. But what's Dowd's excuse for punching Pelosi?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pelosi Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Wrong again, moron... Posted by: Wesley69
» RE: Wrong again, moron... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Still a moron, and a pussy... Posted by: Wesley69
» RE: Still a moron, and a pussy... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» anyone who recites % Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: anyone who recites % Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: anyone who recites % Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: anyone who recites % Posted by: ignition
» RE: anyone who recites % Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Pelosi Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Pelosi Posted by: sabresong
Hmm...
Posted by: Intraspecto on Nov 21, 2006 1:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pelosi Sucks...'Nuff said.

PS- RSAXTO- why must you ALWAYS post first?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hmm... Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: Hmm... Posted by: Intraspecto
» You pathetic creep! Posted by: ignition
» RE: Hmm... Posted by: buggernaut
» RE: Hmm... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Hmm... Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: Hmm... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RSAXTO - WTF?? Posted by: Bree in Idaho
» Choose your battles Posted by: buggernaut
» RE: Choose your battles Posted by: Intraspecto
» RE: Choose your battles Posted by: Bree in Idaho
» RE: SAXTO - WTF?? Posted by: Intraspecto
» RE: SAXTO - WTF?? Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: SAXTO - WTF?? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RSaxto - thanks Posted by: Bree in Idaho
» Brilliant! Posted by: texshelters
» RE: Brilliant! Posted by: rsaxto
BB would be proud.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Nov 21, 2006 4:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Wait, so first Pelosi is criticized for "making her first move based on relationships," and then she's criticized for not giving a chairmanship to a "former friend and fellow Californian?"

Why do these pundits and alot of republicans act so childishly? This is one of the best things I have read about Pelosi. I'll give her credit is she proves that her most important project is getting us out of Iraq. I can not criticize her for such a plan or the decision to concentrate on it. Maybe she can get it done quickly and then work on campaign finance and corruption. Then she should change her mind (a women's prerogative) and press for impeaching the bush cabal.

Come on Nancy! You can do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BB would be proud. Posted by: Phenix
tiago
Posted by: tiago on Nov 21, 2006 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a Democratic leader who would rather listen to the American people than to "everyone in Washington"?

How is that both Pelosi and Huffington's hearing is impaired by the Zionists of this world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Come on now Posted by: buggernaut
» And furthermore, Posted by: buggernaut
» RE: And furthermore, Posted by: ignition
Nancy Pelosi
Posted by: alanmcc on Nov 21, 2006 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Ms Huffington's
approval of Ms Pelosi's actions.
We should also note that
Nancy Pelosi's
rejection of impeachment is
also based on principle.
How can she endorse an impeachment
process(of course Cheney would go too)
which would have the effect of
sliding her into the
White House. Please
from now on _discount_ all that
Ms Pelosi says about impeachment;
she's got to take that position.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly!!! Grassroots Impeachment !!! Posted by: alternetleslie
MSM slight of hand
Posted by: Rbuck on Nov 21, 2006 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The MSM will paint Pelosi as failing and will dog her footsteps in an attempt to mislead the public and protect the status quo. They know what they are doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She missed the point
Posted by: bookwoman on Nov 21, 2006 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can understand Pelosi wanting to promote Murtha in the new Congress. It was his change of stance on Iraq which started the rocking.

However, in a time when ethics is so high on the list of Democratic campaign promises and the Republicans chose to ignore the problem in their own party, Murtha, with any breath of wrongdoing about him, would have been a problem. In fact, I'm surprised that the GOP didn't bring it up when they were trying to discredit him earlier this year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Psychological Exam for Congress & Executive Branch
Posted by: mite on Nov 21, 2006 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no degree in the sciences but from what I've seen, read in history and 9/11 lies; I would say they all need an examination of the brain.
Do Congress and Executive persons take psycholoical exams to observe if there are any problems upstairs? Or does that only apply to the employee's of big government? Not the executives? Why is that?
When I was in boot camp I had to take test after test for my brain. When I went for any local, state, federal job I had to take psych tests. I do not know about the rest of you but I would say there is reason to wonder!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The LA Times and New York Times were war cheerleaders who now must admit to lying
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 21, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Judith Miller's articles in the NYT on weapons of mass destruction were a serious abuse of journalistic principles. The major media outlets refused to cover views from UN weapons inspectors and the many people who pointed out that the INC was not a reliable source of information.

Now they're faced with a disaster that they are just as responsible for as the Bush administration. The corporate media has become a propaganda machine. When the NYT or LAT claims that Pelosi is "courting disaster" what they mean to say is that their corporate owners have a vested interest in seeing the war continue.

The NYT has a member of the Carlyle Group (arms, pharma, media) on their corporate Board. The Washington Post hired a Bush speechwriter for their op-ed page (blatant!). The Los Angeles Times is owned by the Tribune Company, an 8 billion dollar media corporation whose major investors include State Street, Fidelity, Vanguad, Barclays UK, etc.... the very same firms who are the majority shareholders in companies like Exxon, Chevron and Halliburton, as well as in the major pharmaceutical, junk food and agribusiness companies.

Take another look at the LAT. There are at least three levels of front companies involved - the paper itself, the media holding company second, and the financial corporations third - and they're unwilling to say who owns them! This is why so many people are demanding the end to media consolidation - probably the most important anti-trust issue that exists today.

Would a financial firm with major holdings in Big Oil pressure their media companies to run stories that benefit their interests? Of course they would! That's the real problem that the Democrats face - getting smeared by the media for telling the truth about Iraq, Afghanistan and the rather high levels of corporate greed and government corruption in this country.

Pelosi's strategy of ending the occupation of Iraq and re-establishing Congressional oversight (transparent, hopefully) over the corrupt executive branch seems like the best approach. Those are issues that resonate with the public, who are starting to figure out that the corporate media can't be trusted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

unimportant
Posted by: edith on Nov 21, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pelosi is the "boss" of the House Democrats. She decides the policy of the Caucus and is smart enough to represent the consensus. That's how she became Leader and then Speaker. She is not an extremist, as the Hannitys would frame her. Steny Hoyer had lined up support over a long period of time. Murtha had long-standing problems with liberals in the caucus and with members concerned about his ethics.

I take Pelosi at her word: she believed that at this time Murtha would be the best floor leader because of the importance of Iraq to the image and substance of Democratic policy today. But Hoyer is a consummate "insider"; he will effectively pursue any Iraq policy a majority of the members want. Murtha carried too much baggage and his one-time "hero" status is not enough to justify the splatter on the reputataion of the Democrats just as they regain power.

Arianna has a thing for Murtha. That's nice. but no one is indispensable Arianna, no one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: unimportant Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» It's business Posted by: edith
Thank you
Posted by: charemor on Nov 21, 2006 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for one of the most sane, intelligent and accurate takes on the Pelosi-Murtha-Hoyer situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pelosi Shows the Way
Posted by: GreyTalon on Nov 21, 2006 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, most of the time in the Congress, they know which way the majority is leaning before a vote, and many leaders will take the sure bet, to avoid a pile on from the press. I think Pelosi used this early vote to make her stand on principle, even if the best she could get from it was to steer the party closer to the right direction. Sure, you can't always lead from the front, when the middle is so much safer; but it shows courage when you do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Caught between a rock and a hard place
Posted by: Yundah on Nov 21, 2006 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Media problems with Pelosi stem from the fact that she is a woman. While the media have made much over her being the first female Speaker, there is still such an underlying mistrust and dislike of women in the House (and in the Senate) that she is being, and unfortunately will continue to be, attacked for every decision she makes, not on the substance of the decision but because a woman made the decision. Her sex will be the root and source of criticism, not the the facts which underlie her actions. Hillary Clinton has had to deal with the same behavior. She was excoriated while working on the national health question during her husband's presidency for utilizing meeting strategies that look transparent compared to strategies used by the political party that was doing the kvetching. She'll continue to be criticized, as will Pelosi.
Until our society truly accepts the right of women to be active in making decisions and charting our course, we will continue to have to deal with obfuscatory and emotion laden criticism of women's political lives. Thank you for exposing this behaviour.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FORGET REPUBLICANS - MSM IS THE DEMS REAL ENEMY
Posted by: dmstern on Nov 21, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. If Pelosi starts taking her cues from people like Maureen Dowd she'll be back in the minority in 4 years. The MSM is so ridiculously republican that cries of a liberal media sound more hollow each night. Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, Joe Scarborough, Hannity, O'Reilly....the list goes on and on. Who's got democrats back? Olbermann and Jon Stewart? Barely. The networks are already irrelevant in their futile quest for objective reporting. Pelosi endorsing Murtha was a move of strength and conviction and if she keeps it up, all the republican bully pundits are going to have to get a new game plan. Because the dems are in charge now and we got a speaker with courage. I just hope that MSM rewards dems victory with a few more democratic commentators.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Raise hell with the Media
Posted by: harpy on Nov 21, 2006 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time for an organized effort to blast each and every MSM source every time they do this. How do you think the right-wingers got it done. We've go to e-mail, call, fax, or write letters to these media outlets every time they do this. If we let them get away with it, they'll still keep acting like anybody that is contrary to the Bush crime family policies are "terrorist sympathizers" instead of the other way around. I mean, how many times do you have to hear them demean anybody that doesn't agree with the right-wingers until you actually do something about it? Here, we get to preach to the choir - it's time the choir started singing en masse to these purveyors of political porn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: aise hell with the Media Posted by: lafrance
Shame on Alternet for promoting Glenn Beck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: WhuThe?!? on Nov 21, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody find it rather odd that Alternet is advertising for Mr. Rightwinger punk Glenn Beck (excuse me while I puke)?!? The advertisement is above to the left. At first I saw the title “Exposed. The Extremist Agenda” with a picture of mr. right-wing idiot and I thought it was an advertisement for some program showing what a homophobic idiot with an agenda he is. Well, it ends up it is an advertisement for my favorite person’s special on CNN News about what airs in the middle east against the U.S.
No doubt the underlying purpose of his special program will be to fuel more fear of, and anger at, middle easterners, with the goal of justifying further war and turmoil, in other words, the promotion of the agenda of the republican party; hey, isn’t that what Glenn boy is all about?!?
Glenn-boy is so right wing, one would not even know if the program is true or fabricated to further his agenda. So why the hell is Alternet taking his money?!?
Shame on Alternet for advertising for this moron!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hmmmmm Posted by: buggernaut
Why? Because of corruption.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 21, 2006 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ours is not to reason why John Patrick Murtha, Jr. and Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi are so close. It couldn't be that they both have 'dirt' on each other from all the corruptions they've been involved in over the years. Or that Pelosi at least, has more 'information' on Murtha and so he would do her absolute bidding and be on her beck and call? Remember Congress is like the mob. You want your underlings to be corrupt, perverted, or otherwise tainted. This way you have assurances that they will be faithful to you and not expose the corruptions and crimes and you also have blackmail/control over them. The last thing a criminal enterprise such as Congress or the mafia wants is an honest person with no 'dirt' on them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, the (mainstream) media missed the point
Posted by: bjerko on Nov 21, 2006 3:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They did it intentionally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is Nancy Pelosi?
Posted by: WhatNow? on Nov 21, 2006 5:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It Makes me want to Screeeeeaaaammm
Posted by: lafrance on Nov 21, 2006 8:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot take this continuing trashing of Speaker Pelosi for everything. Less than a week after her triumph and making history the media is dogging her. Everything she does is deemed a disaster.
And then, when they get tired of that they go after the whole party. They demand the democrats come up with a plan and fix Bush's mess now. Well, duh. First, they do not take power until Janurary. Second, they have submitted plans to Bush and he's rejected them. Third, it's his damn mess, let him clean it up. Why does someone else always have to rescue the dolt everytime he screws up - like always.
And what awaits once Janurary comes? They spend thier time kissing up to the gop and Bush, roll over and play dead during the past 6 years. A pass on everything.
The Dems get trashed a week after they win the congress.
It makes me want to scream

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It Takes One To Know One
Posted by: mebadgett on Nov 22, 2006 12:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Representative Nancy Pelosi is a person with principles - enough said!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Memeber of the Hood
Posted by: ccluelessfl60 on Nov 24, 2006 4:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A mother of five knows how to tolerate endless complaining and manipulating.Teenagers are notorious for laying blame,switching arguements and making the adults pay with their sanity.She survived it and I did not read that she offed any of the five little sterling characters. She is from the Hood. MOTHERHOOD!!! I think Ms Pelosi survived motherhood by setting the rules.She does not play games.She writes the rules. So Corporate America needs to back off or maybe some other members of the Hood will have to come to her aide

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]