Posts Tagged ‘Nancy Pelosi’

Obama’s Fatal Missteps

October 4th, 2011 by John Feehery

Originally posted on THE HILL – October 3, 2011

It might be too early to start analyzing what went wrong with the Obama administration in its first three years, but I am going to do it anyway.

Here are seven turning points that led to the president’s decline and fall, seven places where Obama or his Democratic allies made critical errors that forever altered the course of his presidency. He hasn’t done everything wrong, but he has made enough mistakes to make his reelection extraordinarily difficult.

1. Failed to veto the initial stimulus package: Imagine for a moment if Obama had vetoed that initial stimulus package. Imagine if he insisted that Democratic leaders take out all the pork and cleanse the bill of unworthy projects. Imagine if he had insisted that congressional Democrats work with Republicans to include their ideas, because we are all in this together. He would have immediately branded himself as a different kind of president, as someone above the fray, as a leader who cares first about the country, not the Democratic Party. And if he had done that, he would have had the Republicans hopelessly divided. Of course, he didn’t take that step, congressional Democrats were able to walk all over him and Republicans stiffened up their resolve and presented a united front against the president and his plans.

Credibility vs. Crassness

August 10th, 2011 by John Feehery

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell put some real thought into their picks for the Joint Super Committee that will decide the fate of so many spending programs and perhaps the financial health of the country.

Harry Reid? Not so much.

Boehner picked two real deal-makers in Dave Camp and Fred Upton, and a guy who learned how to drive a hard-bargain from the best hard-bargainer in the business (Phil Gramm) in Jeb Hensarling.

Neither Camp nor Upton are partisan bomb-throwers. Upton ran into some resistance from the hard right to his ascension to the Energy and Commerce Committee because he was viewed as too moderate, although Fred has been a very reliable conservative in his role as Chairman.

Upton has long experience in budget politics, having served at OMB under Reagan. He is also an expert on entitlement programs, and his appointment shows that Boehner is serious about getting serious on spending.

Camp has been very thoughtful in his new role as Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. He said that he wasn’t going to jam the Ryan Medicare bill through the House only to see it die in the Senate, a signal to the world that Camp was no Kamikaze pilot on smashing the Republican Majority into a Senate cliff.

Boehner Is In Fine Shape

July 27th, 2011 by John Feehery

John Boehner is doing an exceptional job as Speaker under extraordinarily tough times.

When I first started working in Congress, Tom Foley had just taken over from Jim Wright as Speaker of the House.  Unlike the dictatorial Wright, Foley ran a decentralized process that gave too much power to Committee barons like Dan Rostenkowski, Jack Brooks and John Dingell.

Foley could never quite get the Chairmen to work together enough to overcome their jurisdictional squabbles, and Democrats faltered under the House Bank scandal, the Post Office debacle and a series of other damaging revelations about a Congress that was out of control.

When Newt Gingrich came to the Speaker’s Office, he leap-frogged over the gentlemanly Bob Michel (my former boss) who unfortunately announced his retirement before he could see the promised land of a Republican majority.  Gingrich learned the lessons of the ineffective Foley, centralized power in his chambers, and bull-rushed an ambitious Contract with America legislative agenda.  Along the way, Gingrich alienated some of the new Freshmen, his committee Chairmen, and some key members of the leadership, so much so that a few of them launched a failed coup against the embattled Speaker.

Fixers and Breakers

July 19th, 2011 by John Feehery

There are two kinds of politicians.

Fixers come into office to fix things. They seek to fix problems for their constituents, fix the legislative process and fix government.

Breakers come into office to break things. They seek to take down the political order, break up the status quo and destroy icons.

Fixers occupy the political middle on both the left and the right. They like to work within the system, they don’t demonize their opponents; they tend to be workhorses who find the media a necessary, but tedious evil.

Breakers occupy the political fringes on both the left and the right. They hate the current system. They hate their opponents. They tend to be show horses who use the media to carry their message.

Breakers can become fixers, but fixers rarely become breakers.

Newt Gingrich was a breaker. Denny Hastert was a fixer.

John Boehner is a fixer. Nancy Pelosi was a breaker.

Both Bush’s were fixers, as was Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama started as breakers. Franklin Roosevelt campaigned as a fixer, became a breaker when he took the White House (his Hundred Days was a prime example of how the breaker operates) but became a fixer during the Second World War.

Where’s Nancy?

July 18th, 2011 by John Feehery

The media loves to spend time speculating about how John Boehner and Eric Cantor are going to round up the votes to pass President Obama’s debt limit legislation.

But they haven’t asked one of the most important questions out there? Where’s Nancy?

The former Speaker and now House Minority Leader has been mostly kept out of the negotiations, and when she is included, it is mostly because they need a picture of the joint leadership.

Pelosi, though, has taken a position even more radical than those crazy Tea-Partiers, who refuse to vote on the debt limit without some spending caps put in place. She not only wants higher taxes, but she wants to make certain that there are no changes included in any entitlement spending.

It is customary that on a Presidential priority, the President’s party in the Congress works with the President to achieve a goal.

It used to be that on something controversial, like an increase in the debt ceiling (or a Congressional pay raise), that the President desperately wanted and that the President’s opposition did not really want, that the President’s party, even if it were in the minority, would provide enough votes for passage.

History

July 15th, 2011 by John Feehery

I can’t tell if this current Congress is making history, defying history, ignoring history, or will soon be history.

I had dinner last night with a Freshman member of the House, and he told a group of us that most of the new members believe that they have a sacred duty to change the trajectory of American history. They believe that they have to make history now or America will be history as a world leader tomorrow.

That is why so many of them simply don’t trust the leadership on either side of the Capitol or in either party. That is why so many of them are pushing so hard for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in exchange for a debt limit increase, a dubious, if not impossible task. And that is so many of them will vote against a debt limit increase if such an amendment is not included. In their view, we might as well have the crisis now, if such a crisis does happen, rather than later.

Many of these new members simply don’t care whether they come back or not. They believe that they have to do the right thing, no matter what their constituents might say, and damn the consequences.

Reasonable, Unreasonable

July 14th, 2011 by John Feehery

It is altogether reasonable to have grave concerns about our national debt. It is unreasonable to have grave concerns about our debt, and then refuse to do anything about it.

It is reasonable to vote against an increase in the debt ceiling. It is unreasonable to complain, though, when a debt ceiling increase passes and include things that you don’t like.

It is reasonable for conservatives to demand spending cuts to be included as part of the debt ceiling increase. It is unreasonable for them to hold hostage the debt ceiling increase unless the House and Senate both pass a Constitutional amendment to the Constitution.

It is reasonable for the President to ask Republicans to pass a debt limit increase. It is unreasonable for the President to demand that Republicans include a tax increase as part of the debt limit increase.

It is reasonable for the President to make the case for tax increases. It is unreasonable for the President to make that case merely seven months after he signed into law a huge tax cut.

The Pelosi-Bachmann Axis

July 12th, 2011 by John Feehery

Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, must be very happy with her colleague Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann (R-Minn.) has stated repeatedly that she will never vote to increase the debt limit. And her position is winning converts among some House Republicans, especially those who are worried about a primary challenge from the right.

The Bachmann effort brings a smile to Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) face because Pelosi knows how to count votes as well as anybody. She knows Bachmann’s public pronouncements counter intuitively give Nancy Pelosi greater leverage in the negotiations on the debt limit.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would rather negotiate with Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Hoyer, who trends more moderate, is a reasonable fellow who has demonstrated an ability to cut a deal. Hoyer, unfortunately, can only bring with him about 30 Democrats. That is enough for Boehner, if he can keep his caucus unified enough to get 190 votes.

But if the Bachmann Tea Party Caucus grows beyond 40, that makes Boehner’s task more complicated. And it gives Pelosi a lot more power in the negotiations.

Some of the Tea Partiers honestly believe that we don’t have to raise the debt limit, that we can re-prioritize our debt payments, make minimum payments on some bills that are coming due while floating other payments.

Weiner’s Decline and Fall

June 14th, 2011 by John Feehery

I actually thought he would survive.

When I first heard the allegations against Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), I assumed he would stick it out and stay in Congress.

After all, this was a sex scandal without the sex — a goofy and, yes, creepy case of tweeting without any sense. It seemed pretty harmless at the beginning, but it quickly devolved into a career-ender.

When Weiner faced the New York media last week, seven truths became evident that sealed his fate.

1. He is a liar, big-time: You can expect a politician to lie, initially, about a sex scandal. The last thing anybody wants to do is have that uncomfortable conversation with a spouse. But Weiner’s lies were so elaborate, so practiced and so high-profile that his credibility as a political leader could never recover.

2. He went all in on a losing hand: Weiner tried to bluff Andrew Breitbart, not realizing that the conservative newsmaker had all the cards. Either Weiner didn’t realize that Breitbart had the whole story or is such an idiot that he decided to bluff anyway.

Should He Resign?

June 7th, 2011 by John Feehery

There are more than a few politicians at the federal level who share two conflicting traits: They believe they are the center of the universe, but they also believe that they are anonymous.

That is especially true for Anthony Weiner, but he is not the first and certainly not the last political figure to be beset with controversy brought on by his own stupid actions.

These politicians believe that they should be able to get free drinks at a bar, but are shocked when a reporter calls them on it. They believe that they can pick up girls who are not their wives and are shocked when somebody notices. They believe that they can get away with low-grade corruption, but are devastated when they end up serving time in a minimum security jail.

These politicians are not babes in the woods. They learn a great deal about life and about hard-ball politics when they run for office. They are used to people combing through their garbage, pouring over their tax returns, having every inch of their lives examined with a fine-tooth comb.

But somehow, after the campaign is over, they drop their defenses. Or after they have spent decades in Congress, they figure that they are invulnerable.