New York Times Begs Pelosi Not to Run for Minority Leader

Rep. Nancy Pelosi has already announced that she's running to be House minority leader in spite of last week's defeats. The Democrats' house blog, the New York Times, is out with a piece today begging Pelosi not to run for a return as leader. The editorial reads as if it were written in Fringe's alternate universe:

Nancy Pelosi has been an extremely effective speaker of the House for four years, shepherding hundreds of important bills toward passage and withstanding solid Republican opposition. Her work in passing health care reform and strong ethics oversight achieved what many thought was legislatively impossible.

Yet she never quite got around to pressing Congress to pass a federal budget this year, which is actually one of the Congress' main duties. Neither of those other initiatives mentioned by the Times are, and of the two mentioned, ObamaCare is among the direct causes of the Democrats' defeat.

If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have batted away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country as some kind of fur-hatted commissar jamming her diktats down the public’s throat.

That "ludicrous caricature" resulted from, on the one hand, Pelosi et al. passing ObamaCare even though the majority of the people clearly didn't want it, while on the other hand, she actually argued that we have to pass the bill before we can even find out what's in it, while on the gripping hand, she rode around in military jets at taxpayer expense and acted like an imperial queen. The only thing about the "caricature" that wasn't true is the bit about the fur hat, and the Times made that part up to ridicule the otherwise accurate picture of Pelosi as elitist.  Everyone knows Pelosi wouldn't wear a fur hat anyway.  It would ruin relations with her far left base.

Note also, the Times agrees with the larger lefty Democratic talking point that has emerged from Tuesday; namely, that they lost because their communications were insufficient, not because the voters rejected the Democrats' agenda.  The Times, like the folks atop the Democratic Party, still don't get that it wasn't communications that cost them the election, it was policy.

If communications were really the problem, why does lead Democratic spokesman Robert Gibbs still have a job?  If the Democrats really believed their own rhetoric, Democratic communicators' heads would be rolling from one end of Washington to the other, with Gibbs' own melon leading the macabre parade.  And Pelosi wouldn't even have a shot at a committee chairmanship, much less retain her post atop her party: the "communications" of returning her to leadership would be problematic, to say the least, whether she's actually a good leader or not.

On this note the Times seems to agree with a group within the Democratic caucus.  Fox has a draft letter going around the Hill from Democrats to Pelosi, arguing that she should not remain at the head of their party.  Though the letter's basic point about replacing Pelosi is sound, its reasoning is delusional:

In the draft of the letter, the members say that they were "victimized by a national wave of resentment toward Democrats, a wave that ensnared you along with us."

"Victimized"?  The Democrats have long played up victimhood as a means of attaining power while demonizing their opponents.  That' s one of many bits from out in far left field that they have mainstreamed over the past few decades.  Now they seem to be bitterly clinging to their own "victimhood" as a party, for having been voted out of power.  The question is, if they're the "victims," who is making victims of them?  The voters?  Those eeevil Republicans who were totally outspent in 2010?

The letter goes on to say "Madam Speaker, fairly or unfairly, Republicans made you the face of the resentment and disagreement in our races. While we commend your years of service to our party and your leadership through many tough times, we respectfully ask that you step aside as the top Democrat in the House."

The letter says that the defeated members "fear that Republicans will further demonize you, and in so doing, they will scare potential candidates out. The prospect of having to run against their own party leadership, in addition to their Republican opponent is simply too daunting."