Friday, May 18, 2012

Who'll Be The Next In Line?

>



I only ever had one conversation with Steny Hoyer. The Democrats had just won back the House and Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi was about to ascend to the Speakership. She didn't want a slimy corporatist whore like Hoyer as her top lieutenant and she picked Jack Murtha to take him on for the Majority Leader post. Someone on Hoyer's staff saw that I was less of a fan of Murtha than Mean Jean Schmidt later turned out to be and asked me if I would interview Hoyer. The only precondition was that I couldn't call him a shill during the interview. (Really, that's what the request was.) I liked Hoyer personally during the interview-- many sociopaths, and especially sociopathic politicians and business leaders are very charming-- but in the end I just said, in effect, "a pox on both your houses." Two horrible choices.

It may be recalled by a few that the week before the Hoyer-Murtha throwdown, Rahm Emanuel was trying to fulfill his obligations to Wall Street by grabbing the Whip. But he'd have to grab it away from Jim Clyburn, the only African-American in the caucus leadership. Pelosi headed that off at the pass by giving Emanuel some other undisclosed powers. But Clyburn got the Whip position, ostensibly the #3 job in the leadership. Now he says he's thinking about challenging Hoyer for the Speakership if Nancy decides to bow out-- as is widely rumored. Is Clyburn "better" than Hoyer? Maybe, but that depends on what better means to you. Personally, I find both completely inadequate for any job requiring integrity and a dedication to the welfare of the 99%. Sure Clyburn isn't as bad as Hoyer but that doesn't make him any good. In an interview this week with The Hill he sounded very old, very hackish, and nearly incoherent.
Asked whether he will seek a higher leadership post following the 2012 election, Clyburn told The Hill, “I might-- sure. I’m not closing the door on anything.”

The highest-ranking African-American in Congress then detailed what could be his argument for a promotion: He has paid his dues, both literally and figuratively.

“The people who hold these leadership positions in the palms of their hands-- that’s our caucus-- they hold these positions,” he said. “I think the extent to which I demonstrate that I’m deserving will determine whether or not I continue.”

Clyburn was quick to tout his credentials as a veteran dealmaker with a history of both getting things done and sacrificing for the party when need be. He related an episode early in his Capitol Hill tenure, for instance, when he stepped off the powerful Appropriations Committee to make room for a Republican who was promised a seat on the panel if he switched parties.

“I believe that every member will tell you that I paid significant dues, and I never, ever stepped on anybody along the way,” he said. “People may say they’ll put the interest of the caucus before them. But I have demonstrated it.”

He also noted that he paid his full cycle dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. As the No. 3 Democrat, Clyburn’s dues level is set at $600,000, which he met in January. 

Hoyer, for his part, is not ceding any ground. 

“Mr. Hoyer is focused on taking back the House and being the majority leader,” spokeswoman Katie Grant said Wednesday in an email.
Clyburn is not expected to challenge Pelosi, who has a firm grip on her caucus.

When either of them goes off the reservation it's to serve corporate interests, never the working families of the country. Yeah, yeah... better than Cantor or Boehner. But they all just really suck. Why not a progressive? Why not someone who isn't borderline senile? The Democratic leadership is way too old, too hidebound, way too corrupt and too careerist-oriented. There's a whole rogues gallery of crooks looking to move up the ranks-- junior Rahm Emanuels like Steve Israel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Joseph Crowley worst of all. It scares me that even inside the Democratic Party, sociopaths inevitably seem to gravitate towards leadership posts.

Better choices for the Democrats would be younger, more in touch-- in touch with the real America, not with K Street lobbyists and Capitol Hill operatives-- members like Keith Ellison, Jared Polis, Donna Edwards, Raul Grijalva, Judy Chu... Chris Van Hollen is also waiting in the wings seeing if he can step in, but, while marginally "better" than Hoyer and Clyburn, there;s still that whole integrity and hack problem. Dream scenario: Grayson gets reelected (likely); Pelosi hangs on for another term (possible); Grayson takes over by 2014 (impossible).

Labels: , , ,

2 Comments:

At 5:30 PM, Anonymous me said...

This whole article reminds me exactly why I dropped out from the Democratic Party. They suck, absolutely suck.

Sure, there are a few good Democrats (and NO good republicans), but they aren't numerous enough to keep the whole party from sucking. Which they do - suck, suck, suck.

 
At 6:51 PM, Blogger Dan Lynch said...

Howie, you answered your own question about why can't the better congresscritters get the leadership positions:

". . .he paid his full cycle dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. As the No. 3 Democrat, Clyburn’s dues level is set at $600,000"

In other words, committee chairs and leadership positions are based on PAY-2-PLAY. Only corrupt corporate shills have the money to play the PAY-2-PLAY game, ensuring that the Democratic party will always be led by psychopaths who are beholding to corporations.

IMHO, replacing PAY-2-PLAY with something that doesn't involve bribes should be a progressive priority. No constitutional amendment is needed, the Dem caucus merely has to vote to change the party rules.

Grayson doesn't have the cash to play the game, so forget about Speaker Grayson. Ain't gonna happen. Money talks, merit walks.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home