Monday, October 19, 2009

So what that only 34% of Californians approve of Nancy Pelosi's job performance?

She doesn't depend on them for re-election, that, luckily for her, is dependent on her reliably liberal district. And there is little possibility that voters in other California districts will vote against Democratic candidates because of their dissatisfaction with Pelosi; gerrymandering has rendered very few districts up for grabs to the point where an anti-Pelosi bloc would sway the results.

There is, however, a fine way of exploiting her underwhelming ratings: the House GOP should pledge to back as Speaker a candidate chosen by the 'Blue Dog' moderate Democrats... and to also promise to throw their votes against any attempt by the liberal Democrats to punish the Blue Dogs for this blasphemy.

The Blue Dogs and the GOP together form a majority of votes in the House. They ought to work together to elect a Speaker who, by definition, almost has to be better than Pelosi at representing the concerns and values of their respective districts. Why should they abide by precedent that allows a minority of the House (liberals) to select the Speaker and control the agenda? Heck, while they're at it, they wouldn't have to stop at Speaker; most, if not all, of the House Committees are chaired by diehard liberals, the Blue Dogs and the GOP should pledge to replace them as well.

Granted, ousting Pelosi would deny the GOP partisans the ability to raise money and campaign on an anti-Pelosi platform. But while that may result in fatter campaign bank accounts, it is detrimental to the interests of anybody to the right of Pelosi and Stark and Rangel. Nor is the GOP going to take back control of the House next year anyway, so they ought to take advantage of the opportunity to dramatically improve their relative fortunes.

And an added bonus: the 'post-partisan' Obama would find it hard to criticize this move, wouldn't he? Democrats and Republicans working together to find a solution to their common problem, what could be more bi-partisan than that?