Guess who’s the biggest partisan in the House?
posted at 3:10 pm on May 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Or, perhaps not so odd at all. According to a survey conducted by The Hill among House members, Nancy Pelosi ranks first among Democratic partisans, and is one of the most difficult members to approach from the GOP side of the aisle. In contrast, her lieutenant Steny Hoyer ranks first for bipartisanship in the majority, but that serves a purpose, too (via Michael Goldfarb):
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) is the most partisan Democrat in the House, while her deputy, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), is one of the most bipartisan lawmakers in the lower chamber, according to a survey conducted by The Hill.
The two Democratic leaders have established a good-cop-bad-cop modus operandi, which may be a key to their effectiveness since taking control in 2007.
Normally, one would expect the lieutenant to be the hatchet man while the top dog offers carrots instead of sticks. Pelosi apparently doesn’t mind being the hatchet woman, though, and that may just be her nature. Republicans tell the Hill that she truly doesn’t like her opponents in Congress and has no desire to work with them:
“The Speaker doesn’t meet with Republicans,” a Republican lawmaker said.
“Nancy Pelosi has not been very friendly to me,” another GOP member said. “I tried to visit her and I have had trouble with that. I know she is busy … but it is difficult.”
“The Speaker honestly doesn’t like Republicans,” a third House Republican lawmaker said.
Among Republicans, the most partisan is Republican Study Committee chair Tom Price, which makes sense. Neither John Boehner nor Eric Cantor get noted for partisanship, even though Democxrats recently tried painting Cantor as Mr. No in a strange PR campaign during the Porkulus debate. The Hill says that the GOP duo have not found a way to beat Pelosi and Hoyer, but their ability to whip Republicans on Porkulus seems pretty impressive and stripped Pelosi and Barack Obama of a bipartisan fig leaf for the disastrous spending bill. That seems pretty effective for caucus leaders with a large deficit.
Interestingly, and somewhat amusing, Ron Paul gets named as one of the most bipartisan members of the GOP. I suspect a better description would be non-partisan, or perhaps just crank.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Could the Dems do anything at all without total control of the media?
Vanceone on May 5, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Now why would you say that?
I’d take Ron Paul over just about anybody serving in congress today. he is definitely among the most principled.
UltimateBob on May 5, 2009 at 3:12 PM
The Paul-Nut Alert System is now activated.
steveegg on May 5, 2009 at 3:14 PM
I don’t have a problem with Nancy Pelosi being partisan. The part about not even meeting with Republicans might be a bit much.
So was Newt Gingrich partisan. So was Tom Delay. They also were effective.
Speaking of Gingrich, anyone remember the Contract for America? Anyone remember that? Mitt? Cantor?
BigD on May 5, 2009 at 3:15 PM
My english not so good.
Partisan means bitch, no?
omnipotent on May 5, 2009 at 3:16 PM
The problem was never the Contract, it was what happened afterwards.
steveegg on May 5, 2009 at 3:16 PM
What’s with the gratuitous Paul-bashing?
progressoverpeace on May 5, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Democxrats
TYPO in 3rd paragraph Ed
omnipotent on May 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Her job is to get all her members in line behind the big ticket items she wants to push. We know she’s a b!tch, her supporters know she’s a b!tch, but she’s effective at her job.
BadgerHawk on May 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM
My English not so good.
Partisan means b*tch, no?
omnipotent on May 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM
I am shocked! Shocked, I say!
TXMomof3 on May 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM
I was trying to say that the Contract was a positive and that we might want to try again.
BigD on May 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Sure, but that’s because he is a RINO from the Libertarian Party (as apposed to a RINO from the Dems).
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Yes.
It’s in the turn of the screw; when you can’t even get an audience with the leader, “partisan” doesn’t cut that mustard.
maverick muse on May 5, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I don’t think either of those Speakers espoused to bring back bi partisanship, and civility, to the House.
Nancy did say this, and has done anything but. In reality, Newt worked very closely with Clinton, to balance the budget. That is bipartisanship. Nancy never achieved, even a fraction of that kind of bipartisanship. Oh, except when it came to water boarding. Then she was all for it….til she was against it.
capejasmine on May 5, 2009 at 3:21 PM
To no one’s surprise, Michele Bachmann (R-MN6) is the fifth most partisan Republican:
Bachmann partisan? Oberstar, Petersen nonpartisan?
starfleet_dude on May 5, 2009 at 3:22 PM
a RINO/cancer who helps the Dems more than anyone else and lies about Conservative and American History.
its truely amazing what he can get away with because the MSM ignores him since he helps their cause. no point in exposing the fraud and crackpot for what he is.
jp on May 5, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Nancy Pelosi is truly evil. Evil is as evil does.
petunia on May 5, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Got it. At the same time, it would be advisable to pna for a post-Contract era.
steveegg on May 5, 2009 at 3:28 PM
“plan”, even.
steveegg on May 5, 2009 at 3:28 PM
think the White Witch in Narnia
jp on May 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM
ROFLMAO!!!
capejasmine on May 5, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Can you provide examples with links?
Not to sound like I’m a big Ron Paul supporter, I just want to know more about his record, lies and all.
At any rate, I find it hard to believe that he would help the Dems more than someone like, oh, say, Specter or Collins or Snowe.
UltimateBob on May 5, 2009 at 3:31 PM
In other countries, the party that’s in power is the party that’s in power and everyone else isn’t.
Dave Rywall on May 5, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Remember when the Republicans were in charge………
……… and every day there was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on the steps of the Capitol holding daily press conferences telling America how the Republicans were inside Congress burning books and eating babies alive.
I know it won’t get much press coverage at first, but I sure would like to see some Conservative members of Congress doing the same thing, except fighting for this country……….
……. spelling out to the American people just how we got into this mess in the first place, laying blame to Democratic Social Engineering policies and the part Barney Frank and Chris Dodd played in it, the run on the banks right before the election, the lack of accountability for Trillions of the TARP and “Stimulus Bill” funds that have gone missing, the “Chicago Thug” politics of the Obama Administration, the dangers of releasing the terrorists at Gitmo into our society, just to name a few.
I would love it, day in, and day out, hammering home to the American people a second “Contract with America” with Conservative principles………
……….. I can dream, can’t I?
Seven Percent Solution on May 5, 2009 at 3:34 PM
The survey is a sham. Barney Frank is listed in both the most partisan and most pipartisan lists. He’s slippery one but I’m sure he can’t be both.
Scrappy on May 5, 2009 at 3:34 PM
2008 ACU ratings: http://www.acuratings.org/2008house.htm
Pelosi: 0
Stoyner: 0
Price: 100
Boehner: 92
CANTOR: 92
Paultard: 77 and 90(2008, less foreign policy key votes)
jp on May 5, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Bonny Fwank goes both ways? Who knew?
thomasaur on May 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM
well, he’s a possible racist and definite crackpot which is well documented here at Hotair, in bed with Truthers who he had at his convention last year and is a regular on Alex Jones radio show, which is by itself an indictment.
he is the face of the John Birch Society and idiots that Buckley and Goldwater through overboard a long time ago.
He, like the fool that he is, lied about Afghanistan and Iraq and repeated the far-left LIES(which is common with Anarcho-Capitalist), which does nothing but help the Dems.
He lies about the Founding Fathers being Isolationist, err “non-interventionist”, which is a complete lie and fabrication that basic history debunks. The guy is not close to what the Founders actually stood for and what they actually did while in office.(i.e. they weren’t idiots).
siding with Hamas(a terrorist group over Israel and Western Interest)
claiming Iran has no Military
claiming(on his website) that “Constitutionally” there are only 3 Federal Laws, when the very first Congress went beyond what he cites as any simple account of history shows.
….and on and on and on.
Point is, the MSM could absolutely have him run out of town if they chose to. Instead they ignore, to let him stir up trouble for Conservatism and GOP in the ‘grassroots’ online, which better serves their purposes. If enough GOP voters turn to his idiocy the GOP is doomed and the Dems will continue to gain power in Washington.
jp on May 5, 2009 at 3:42 PM
And with those two sentences, every Paulbot in the land takes time from ranting about the Joooooos and the Federal Reserve (and asking their Moms for their allowance) to come after Ed.
It's Vintage, Duh on May 5, 2009 at 3:42 PM
if you listen to the Virtuous Isolationist crowd, you’d never know that Thomas Jefferson engaged in a massive Trade Embargo against Britain, prosecuted a War against Jihadist without a document with “declaration of war’ at the top.
Washington engaged in Foreign Policy Alliances, when Prudence called for its(as it does today) and for first century all Presidents had sent the Military abroad in engagements overseas.
what Paul represents is something that has never been conservative or Classical Liberal. There was a brief period with both the GOP and the Left went Isolationist(leading to Rise of Hitler) and even then people like Robert Taft still supported the creation of the United Nations(which Paul has told tales on)
jp on May 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Nancy Pelosi stars in The Devil Wears Prada.
Eat your heart out, Meryl Streep.
bluelightbrigade on May 5, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Not a thing.
patrick neid on May 5, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Executive branch: Liberal
Legislative branch: liberal
Judicial: soon to be more empahtetic(liberal)
Public and higher education: liberal
Media: liberal
Military: mostly conservative but receives orders from executive branch.
Checks and balances is a thing of the past.
The only way out of our current situation is an civil uprising. But will the left in America revolt in riot against the minority of leaders on the right (I would expect blood shed) before the right in America revolt against leaders on the left?
shick on May 5, 2009 at 3:55 PM
You mean the House Madam, Ruler of the Lower Half of the Biggest Little Whorehouse on the Potomac is partisan?
Tell me it ain’t so!
SeniorD on May 5, 2009 at 3:56 PM
So Ed has no conceptual problem with the situation except for the reversed label.
Very deep.
radiofreevillage on May 5, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Good. About time they made it official. She is also a phony, two-faced, liar. It’s about time they called a horse a horse.
scalleywag on May 5, 2009 at 4:05 PM
ROFLMAO!!!
capejasmine on May 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM
In other countries, they don’t have Presidents who apologize to the rest of the world for being strong and successful. Or waterboarding known terrorists. Or kiss the ring of another country’s king.
Not even Germany. And they have a LOT of history to apologize for, of you know what I mean.
UltimateBob on May 5, 2009 at 4:45 PM
+100
gregbert on May 5, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Factor in Avg. American: Ignorant and you’ve got yourself a prescription for Idiocracy.
gregbert on May 5, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Nancy Pelosi is now grown up but was a kid in the movie “Village of the Damned.” Unfortunately her eyes got stuck in that peculiar stare position in adulthood as well.
Travis1 on May 5, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Effectiveness?!?!?
When did that happen???
BigWyo on May 5, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Remember the Contract with America? Cantor, Bohener? Bueller? Bueller?
kens on May 5, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Cunning Stunt Nancy
400lb Gorilla on May 5, 2009 at 9:00 PM
He deserves it..and mostly, it’s fun. I’d still rather bash John McCain though. If I had Rush’s show, I would make it my mission to spend at least a half hour of my show bashing John McCain every day. The ultimate goal would be to actually drive him out of the party, or into retirement. But, Backdoor John is keeping a low profile, so Ron Paul it has to be.
austinnelly on May 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM
JP
Basically everything you said is ignorant or stupid. Dr. Paul is not a racist or a “truther”, and crackpot is definitely an opinion based on the fact that you disagree with him. I would venture to guess that your definition of crackpot would mean anyone you disagree with on a few issues.
The John Birch society has had racial problems in its past but as a hispanic member I can assure you that this is not systematic of the organization. In fact, much of the hooplah about it today is a result of the left’s interpretation of “racist”. For example: I am a racist because I believe in common sense border security.
He has not lied about Afghanistan and Iraq he just disagrees with our involvement in nation building. Maybe his position makes him more closely lined up with the Dems during the election but I haven’t heard too many Dems complaining about either since Obama won. My point being the Dems are for wars that help them…Dr. Paul makes his decisions based on his worldeviews and political beliefs.
By the way the our reluctance to adhere to the principles of anarcho capitalism (as espoused in the Austrian school)is the reason we find ourselves in economic trouble today. A real conservative would realize that anarcho-capitalism is the real conservative economic policy.
He does not side with Hamas, he just doesn’t agree that we should blindly side with Israel.
Constitutionally there are only 3 PUPPOSES for the Federal government…not 3 laws.
He has not lied about the Founding Fathers being “non-interventionists”. Their words and actions may not have lined up but they did advocate non-interventionism.
therambler on May 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM