Hotline: Steny "K Street" Hoyer's letter announcing his candidacy for majority leader of the House

[flpoljunkie]

Not so fast, "Mr. K Street!" Jack Murtha, are you still in?

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/11/hoyer_letter_an.html#more

November 08, 2006

Hoyer Letter Announces Candidacy

Here's the letter from Rep. Steny Hoyer, a candidate for Majority Leader.

"November 8, 2006

"Dear Colleague,

"WE DID IT!!!

"After toiling for 12 years in the Minority, last night we recaptured the House Majority and now are poised to make history by electing our Leader, Nancy Pelosi, as the first woman Speaker, to pursue an aggressive Democratic agenda that addresses the needs of our nation and the American people, and to ensure that the Executive Branch is no longer given free rein by Congress to do whatever it wants but is held accountable by a co-equal branch of government.

"For the last four years, I have been honored to serve as your Whip, working on a daily basis with Nancy, Jim, John, Rahm, and all of the Members of our Caucus to bring us to this point. Together, our Caucus has achieved unprecedented unity – and our unity, I believe, proved to be instrumental to last night’s tremendous Democratic victory. This was a team effort!

"Today, as part of the leadership team that helped our Caucus regain the House Majority, I am writing to ask you to support my candidacy for the position of Majority Leader when the Caucus elects its leaders for the 110th Congress on November 16th. I would be honored to serve as your Majority Leader, and am grateful for the depth and broad range of commitments that have been given by Members for my candidacy. While my top priority has been helping our Caucus regain the Majority, I assure you that I have given a great deal of thought to the duties of this leadership position.


First and foremost, I believe it is absolutely critical that our new Majority Leader have the skills, ability and energy to reach out to every element of our diverse Caucus so that we may achieve consensus. In fact, as Nancy and I have stated, our intention is to run a more civil institution that is open and transparent, and to seek bipartisan support for our agenda. However, if the other side chooses to obstruct rather than to cooperate, we must be prepared to secure the votes necessary to move our legislative priorities. And, I believe that I have established a strong track record in this regard over the last four years.

As our Majority Leader, I intend to work closely with Speaker Pelosi to ensure our Party’s unity, as I have over the last four years. In addition, I will meet with our Committee Chairmen and Chairwomen early and often, as well as solicit Members’ views on what they think ought to be in legislation under consideration. The success of our legislative program must be our paramount objective. We have a two-year period in which to demonstrate that we can govern and lead – and our success will be critical to our ability to retain the Majority.

In addition, our new Leader must have an unwavering commitment to our core Democratic principles. I also believe that our new Majority Leader must be an effective communicator who can persuasively deliver our Democratic message on the range of issues that confront our nation – from national security, to the budget and taxes, to health care and education, to energy and the environment. And, our new Leader must have a proven track record as a legislative strategist and Floor tactician who works on behalf of our Democratic Caucus. I believe that I have demonstrated the experience and skills necessary to succeed in this role.

I look forward to talking to you about my candidacy and hearing your thoughts on the Majority Leader position, as well as our new challenges in the Majority, in the next few days. Until then, enjoy this great victory! I’ll see you when you return to Washington next week for our organizing Caucus.

With warmest personal regards, I am


Sincerely yours,

STENY H. HOYER

[featherman]

1. Murtha said last night he is in the running

Word is Pelosi prefers Murtha

[reality based]

2. And he implied that he had the votes.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Hoyer just MSNBC's told Andrea Mitchell that he thinks he will be the new majority leader.

The vote will be November 17th, I think I read.

[IWantAChange]

4. How sweet would Murtha's winning be? Swiftboaters - just shrivel

up and die and do us all a big favor.

[Roxy66]

14. I prefer Murtha to Reid for sure.....

I like Harry Reid, but he just doesnt come off as a strong enough voice. There are many more in the House that could lead us, I just hope they make the right choice.

[SouthernBelle82]

69. Murtha is in the House

And Reid is in the Senate.

[wicket]

24. Wicket prefers Murtha

:D :patriot:

[MessiahRp]

45. Go Murtha!

I have never been a Steny Hoyer fan.

Rp

[SouthernBelle82]

68. Good to hear

I hope Murtha gets it because I think he will just be a lot better than Hoyer. There is just something I don't trust about him being the leader. I think Murtha would be great and he would really help to get a decent plan to get us out of Iraq asap but yet in a good timely fashion.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalEsto]

6. Nancy's earned it

STFU Steny

[ShaneGR]

12. Two different positions... Nancy=Speaker

He wants to be Majority Leader. Different positions.

[FighttheFuture]

38. True, but who will hold power? The speaker should but that is not always the case...

look at now, Hastert was the Speaker but tom Delay, as the Majority Leader was the real power there. Hoyer is dangerous and his lust for power, and Pelosi's job, may damage what must be done. We shall see. He has others to deal with like Murtha and Emmanual.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Tom DeLay held the power because Denny was his puppet

DeLay didn't have control under the Gingrich regime because Gingrich was a strong enough figure in his own right.

[DaveinMD]

7. so we should kick out

the 50 or so Democrats that voted for it.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveinMD]

17. so we should be the minority party again

glad to know what you want.

[LindyHope]

19. Ummm

Of course not. They just need to br replaced :-)

[FighttheFuture]

36. No, but we should not reward corporate suckup Dems. the Dems need

a lot of housecleaning to remove the taint of K-street/Corporate money. That's what's been poisoning it for years, and rewarding conservative power-hungry sucks like Hoyer, or falling into the Rahn/Schumer "this victory is all ours" bullshit is just a recipie to rebirth the Repuglican agenda in Dem clothing.

Time to get back to the values, laws and regulations that built and nourished the middle class and helped so many out of poverty! There's much work to still do.

[LindyHope]

13. HOYER HAS ADMITTED HE IS UNQUALIFIED FOR THE JOB !!!!

.

He states in his announcement letter he is NOT qualified for the position!


"In addition, our new Leader must have an unwavering commitment to our core Democratic principles. "


It is news to me that corruption, corporate bribery, and exuberant egregious corporate greed at the expense of working Americans who have been struck by sudden job loss and uninsured medical expenses is a "core Democratic principal"

He must be held accountable for his sell out.

[flpoljunkie]

15. His bankruptcy sellout mocks his "unwavering commitment to our core democratic principles."

What a load of crap from Steny "K Street" Hoyer!

[geek tragedy]

8. Meh. I'd prefer Murtha, Emmanuel, or a member of the CBC.

But, I can live with Hoyer as House MAJORITY leader.

[FighttheFuture]

35. Emmanuel? Puh-lease. K-street Corporate suckup.

I understand he has to find ways to butter the party's bread, but Rahm needs to understand that it's the voters, the people of the party that bake the bread. He needs to find new sources of butter and tap down this K-street Corporatist agenda of greed before he's toast!

[geek tragedy]

47. He certainly delivered for us yesterday.

I prefer ass-kickers to boy scouts when it comes to party leadership positions.

[FighttheFuture]

48. Don't be suckered! Look carefully at who's ass Rahm is licking!!

Rahm starved a number of candidates who were not conservative until it looked like they were going to win even without his help. In the meantime he sunk $3M into Tammy Duckworth (I wodl have liked to see her win, and if she lived in that district she might have, but hey, spread the cash Rahm!).

1. The biggest credit goes first to the Republicans for fucking up so much! Little tyrants always do.
   
   
2. Next, I give it to the people, who turned out, and overcame a number of fixed voting systems. Just imagine how many more would have been won with a fair, trustworthy election system or with a MSM that does a job if informing?! I hope the Dems start fixing this mess. Paper, hand counted, use technology only to verify and observe the counting, not to generate the vote!
   
   
3. Next, I give it next to the grass roots activivsts and Howard Dean's 50 state strategy equally; a strategy that Emmanual and Shumer were against because they thought it was a waste of money and wanted the DNC cash for their own DCCC and DSCC. Waste of money my ass!
   
   
4. Finally I give credit to Rahm and Schumer; but carefully, for I really want their K-street lobbyist cash out of politics. Period!
   

[geek tragedy]

49. Good points. Still, he's going to want a prize, and if

he's going to get one, might as well be at Steny Hoyer's expense.

[Lil Red]

50. He did not!!!

It was Howard Dean's 50 state-strategy, not Emmanuel's Repuke appeasment strategy, that won the day! I was absolutely disgusted with the way the MSM (and Rahm, himself) was giving him all the credit.

I NOMINATE MURTHA FOR MAJORITY LEADER! Can I get a second?

[FighttheFuture]

71. I second Murtha! Screw Hoyer and Emmanual!

[FredScuttle]

9. Murtha needs to be Majority Leader

end of story.

[sleepingdog]

11. No doubt about it!

Murtha! :kick:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Javelina8]

18. GO MURTHA!!!! n/t

[MADem]

28. Well, Murtha voted for the war as well. So THAT argument is horseshit.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

See for yourself.

[JaneQPublic]

20. I'm in Steny's district. Yesterday I voted for his Green opponent. n/t

[marylanddem]

22. Me, too

And Steny is pretty good to his constituents - but all wrong on Iraq & other
issues. So I voted green too.

[MADem]

30. Wow, helluva way to support the Democratic agenda with the House in the balance.

I'm astounded you would ADMIT that shit on this website. You need to reread the rules.

[FighttheFuture]

33. the Dems need a lot of housecleaning. It was a safe protest vote,

and Hoyer deserves it!

[JaneQPublic]

37. Right. If Steny's had the least chance of losing, I'd vote for him.

But in fact, the GOP didn't even run a challenger against him. Hence, the Green protest vote.

[Lil Red]

51. I can't believe you just admitted THAT shit.

Nowhere in the rules that I read did it say that anyone is required to get the DU community's approval on their vote! That is neither democratic or progressive.

Shame on you.

[MADem]

54. I suggest that YOU reread the rules before you get in my face.

Because not only are you WRONG, you are dead wrong. http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

And specifically, http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html


Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

Seems pretty damn clear to me. If you are voting AGAINST a Democrat, by your very action you are working for their defeat.

That sort of post belongs at GREEN UNDERGROUND...oops, there's not one of those, is there???

[FighttheFuture]

72. So, let me guess... you support Joey Lie-berman, too? Right? 'Cause these "rules"

would not have tolerated early condemnations of him and unseating strategies; as much as he deserved it.

What I see you saying, in your anally-obsessive/compulsive "by the rules" barny-fife like way is we should all shutup and goose-step when we have a complaint about the Dems, just like the Repukes have done for their party!! Gee, that's worked out swell for the world!!

The poster made a very valid statement not in support of republicans, but complaining about their House Representative and how they protested him. It's good to see people participating and being honest about how they feel about their Dem representatives. The Dems need housecleaning and a lesson on who they really represent, first and foremost, the people!! If it takes voting against some of these asses, then so be it!

If you think what's been posted is so bad, go whine to the board ops.

[MADem]

73. Where in hell did you drag THAT pathetic strawman from? Sheesh.

No, I didn't support "Joey Lie-berman" (are you always this "mature" in your political discourse?). I didn't like the bastard when he stood up on the Senate floor and started giving Clinton shit. I didn't even like him as Gore's running mate.

I had no dog in the CT primary races, as I'm not from there and was too busy with a governor's race here in my home state. The minute Lamont won, he was my choice. So gee, guess your supposition about my loyalties didn't pan out there, did they?

My point remains, despite your childish personal insults, which as we know are poor substitutes for any sort of decent argument. You clearly don't have one, otherwise you wouldn't resort to anal, Barney Fife imagery as a defense against your failure to conduct yourself within the guidelines here.

This is NOT Green Underground, it's DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. I don't come here to partake of the sort of crap you just dished out, and I am glad there are rules against that sort of nonsense so this place doesn't devolve into some YAHOO joke of a discussion forum. And rules aren't suggestions, they're rules. I don't see any part of this rule is optional:

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

You're wrong. Go ahead, toss another insult. It won't make you right.

[ComerPerro]

53. spoiled children

[Straight Shooter]

21. Murtha. Because right now, AFAIC, it's all about the troops. n/t

[Treclo]

23. uh oh

I'd like to see Murtha, as well.

[Ignacio Upton]

25. ...And he's not gonna get it

He has too much baggage.

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. Wish he would have waited till next week for this.

The media loves family fights and the Cons love to egg them on.

[MADem]

29. I do take your point, but frankly, he has always said he was going for this

And Murtha sent out a letter months ago as well, indicating his interest. The only people getting upset here are people who do not follow the Congress closely and who are UNAWARE that this was coming down the pike. This was EXPECTED.

Further, this is NOT up to us. This choice reflects the desire of the Democratic legislators. It's their decision, and NOT ours. We don't get to pick.

And frankly, with the Allen - Webb thing still bubbling, and the Tester race, this will slide under the radar. Those Repiglicans have bigger fish to fry right now.

[Norquist Nemesis]

32. Hope you're right about it sliding under the radar

As one of those who follows Congress (a little too) closely, I knew it was coming. :)

[MADem]

27. I find the entire tone of this thread, aside from the original post, appalling.

It is NOT UP TO US who the Democrats pick for their Majority Leader after Ms. Pelosi becomes Madame Speaker. WE don't have a VOTE here.

So far, Hoyer and Murtha have indicated an interest in the job. If people here throwing invective would take the time to look at the records of both Murtha and Hoyer, you'd find things that might surprise you. Murtha is NO lefty--he's further to the right than Harold Ford on some issues. And Hoyer is no lockstep stooge. Hell, these guys gave him a perfect score on his environmental record: http://www.lcv.org/scorecard/

The point is, WE don't make this decision. The Democratic members of the HOUSE make this choice. They are going to pick the leader that THEY feel most comfortable with, based on THEIR personal knowledge, to include wheeling and dealing that WE never see, how the candidates press for advantage and keep the delegations in line. Our opinion counts for shit. He won't be leading US. He'll be leading his fellow legislators in TACTICAL ways to advance the agenda.

[Zodiak]

31. Many people on this board

believe in bottom-up leadership within the Democratic party.

If you believe in top-down, that is fine, but most people here do not.

Expect to be appalled a lot.

[Lil Red]

52. Well said. (n/t)

[MADem]

55. I beg your pardon? What in FDR's name does the choice of the goddamn

majority leader have to do with "bottom up" leadership?

You're demonstrating your unfamiliarity with the system, and the role of the majority leader, and how that leader is selected. They don't care about your opinion, or mine, either. That job isn't on any ballot. We don't elect the leader. It's an administrative role within the legislature, and THEY choose the people who do the cat herding and wheeling/dealing. We don't weigh in on those decisions.

Good grief, this is a Democratic republic. We elect people to go to DC, to organize themselves as they see fit, to prosecute our agenda. We don't oversee every aspect of their administration, or demand that they bow to the will of a few curmudgeons or perpetual gripers over how they should be organized, just as we don't set the schedule for the number of times their offices are vacuumed, or how often their restrooms are cleaned.

[Zodiak]

62. Three things:

1. Don't curse at me. Mind your manners.

2. Electing a majority leader is not akin to vacuuming the floors. Your argument is hyperbolic. How can you establish that you know the system so much better than I when you make those kinds of comparisons?

3. You once again argued how you like top-down and I said that is fine (for you), but the people do get to influence these decisions if they see fit. That is what letters to congresspeople, calls, emails, and lobbying are for. Sure the decision is in the hands of the reps, but the people have a right to try to influence that decision. That is what bottom-up looks like....and it is legal and encouraged.

[MADem]

63. Three things

1. Unless you are the majority leader, and I rather doubt that you are, I wasn't cursing AT you. A didactic attitude doesn't help a lousy argument. Grow a thicker skin. This is 'the internets.'

2. The selection of a majority leader is NOT a ballot question. As I have said, it's not UP to you, or me, or any voter. It is the perogative of LEGISLATORS how they arrange themselves, and we aren't them. It IS an administrative process, not an electoral one, and too bad if you don't like that analogy. You'd probably be shocked to learn that their are a number of anonymous, unelected staffers on the Hill who have MUCH more day to day clout than the average freshman representative. David Drier's boyfriend, one of the highest paid staffers on the Hill, used to be one such person, but he'll lose his clout at the end of this Congressional session.

3. The effectiveness of legislative leaders, such as the whip, leader and Speaker, has everything to do with their ability to process legislation favorable to their party, NOT their "bottom up" national popularity. It's why asswipes like Frist in the Senate, first, an unknown, and then, a disliked man even amongst his own on a national level, and Delay in the House, a source of humiliation due to his rightwing stances and absurd hyperbolic statements amongst moderate Republicans, were able to hold their jobs AND consolidate their power. Frist was an errand boy who brought direct orders straight from the White House, and Delay was the bastard who arm-twisted, threatened, and forced moderates to vote against their better judgment.

In both cases, the weapon they held against the necks of their flocks was the prospect of no RNC money and a fierce primary challenge when it came time for reelection.

See, that IS how it works. It runs on MONEY, on both sides of the aisle.

[Zodiak]

64. My skin is thick enough

but I have enough self-respect to not accept abuse; you would do well to heed my request if you ever wish to engage me again. You can try to bully another with curses, caps, ridicule, etc., but you will not do it to me without being called on it and subsequently ignored. It is a simple request that I am aware isn't part of the official "rules" of the internet or DU. Honor it or not, your choice.

You and I will never agree on this. You are top-down, and I am a populist. You can trust the reps to do what is right, but I and many like me will get our say regardless of whether you think we should or not. This is how it works, now. Grassroots energized this party and fought in the trenches when establishment Dems snoozed, and we are not going away to let business as usual occur just because we have the power.

You have left out that the leadership has another role, and that is to speak for the party before the media. Do we really want to trust that role to a back-room decision without ANY input? Has that worked out well for us in the past? If not, why would taking the same route work now? I want someone who believes in transparency in government, which disqualifies all DLCers (who won't even reveal their donors). I also do not think that a conservative Democrat would be well-qualified to do the job, either, because of their history at jumping party lines. I do not believe I ever said anything about popularity...that was your inference. I just want a true blue Democrat....not even a liberal.

I will never accept that it is right or necessary to run things exclusively on money and back-room decisions. Nor am I ignorant to not accept it, as you imply. I just believe that the People's party belongs to the people, and the elected Dems who are not on-board with that idea had better atone with the people or become irrelevent over time.

[MADem]

65. Here's a suggestion

If you cannot handle discussion, there's an ignore button, use it. Scolding on your part isn't going to mitigate a lousy argument. I am NOT bullying you, I am merely engaging in debate. Using a "You're being meaaaaan" strategy is not a debate winner in my book, and suggests that you've run out of steam.

For the life of me, I don't get where you extrapolate that I am a "top down" type because I understand how Congress chooses their leadership and you, clearly, do not. That's a foolish and false statement on your part. I simply understand that the administrative organization of the legislature is entirely separate and different from the "all politics is local" election of specific representatives and senators.

The role of the leadership to "speak to the party before the media" is not enshrined or mandated. How often did you see Whip Hoyer on TV? Not often. For that matter, how often did you see Fat Hastert on the tube? Rarely. Here's who decides who does the talking--the party chairs. If Howard tells someone to get out there and flack, they do it, even if they are the staff assistant to the staff assistant or simply someone with intelligence, personality and good looks, who can charm, like a Harold Ford or a Jennifer Granholm. If Doctor Dean tells someone to shut up, they let the voicemail pick up when Timmy Russert calls. THAT's how it works, like it or not.

I've got some horrible news for you--it's not just the lefties, and not just the righties, but also the MODERATES in the party that had a huge role in securing this win, and it is MONEY that secured it too, so you're gonna be unhappy for the next few years.

You apparently don't want a big tent, if you can't manage to work with the DLCers, the moderates, and heaven forfend, the right wing Democrats, like say, Jack Murtha, either. You can't "accept" the reality that money talks, (and no one but you suggested it was 'exclusively' money, but still, it talks), and backroom deals are a fact of life, and have been since George Washington's day. Life is gonna suck for you, because it was everyone from far left to far right within the big tent of the party that won this election. And it was those 'awful' moderates and the DLCers that you disdain who made it EASY for right-leaning independents and disaffected Republicans to cross party lines and vote our team in.

And where you get that crap that conservative Democrats have a "history of jumping party lines" I have no idea. You've got to go back to the Civil Rights legislation to find that crew--but they're most of them dead, and all a bunch of racists anyway, so our inclusive Democratic Party wouldn't WANT those assholes. There's always an odd crackpot like Zell Miller, but he's balanced by a Jim Jeffords. So the broad brush lie that "all" conservative Democrats are party-jumpers is a cheap shot and a false argument.

So, you may "never accept" reality, but that's reality. Get used to it, and perhaps work on being more of a team player who is willing to hear all points of view within the party, from liberal to conservative, rather than pout about how dreadful the DLC is, snatch up your ball, and threaten to stomp off home with it. We've got too much work ahead of us for that kind of drama.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

67. Elitist? The one who won't listen to all wings of the party is the elitist.

Check your mirror for elitists, dear.

[beaconess]

34. I like Murtha, but he's never been a team player among the caucus

He's extremely conservative on most issues and only came around on the war fairly recently.

I'm not sure if he has what it takes to be majority leader, being anti-war isn't enough.

But it's up to the Democratic Caucus who they want to speak for them. It's not a decision for us.

[THUNDER HANDS]

39. ok, so why aren't we supposed to like him?

I don't know much about him, what's the angst about?

[flpoljunkie]

42. Read this, Magic Rat, from Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum on Steny Hoyer and K Street

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_10/009817.php

October 18, 2006

THE ESTABLISHMENTARIAN....Steny Hoyer is the Democratic whip in the House of Representatives, and this November he's going to be a winner no matter what happens. If Democrats win control of the House in the midterm elections, it means Nancy Pelosi moves up to Speaker and Hoyer moves up to Majority Leader. If Dems fail to win control, it most likely means that Pelosi gets tossed out by her colleagues and Hoyer takes over her position as Minority Leader.

So who is Steny Hoyer, and what can we expect from him? Zack Roth, at the end of a long profile in the November Monthly, comes away unimpressed:

The spate of recent lobbying scandals revealed a system in which corporate interests enjoy an unprecedented degree of control over the legislative process. Indeed, the influence of corporate money on legislation is the single biggest obstacle to achieving a broad array of progressive policy goals—from universal health care, to a fairer tax code, to curbing global warming.

That’s why Democrats need leaders who are willing to play aggressively by the current rules of the game — but who seek to change those rules once in power. The enthusiasm with which Hoyer has raised money from K Street, his resistance to serious lobbying reform, and his general comfort with the Washington establishment all imply a politician with little interest in systemic change. Indeed, Hoyer’s contention that the problem lies not with lobbying practices as a whole, but rather with individual corrupt members of Congress, suggests he genuinely sees little need for such change.

The title of the article is "The Establishmentarian," which pretty much sets the tone for the whole piece. It's well worth a read.

—Kevin Drum 12:57 AM

[JaneQPublic]

58. Another Article: "Hoyer's Campaign to Undermine Dems & Topple Pelosi "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hoyers-campaign-to-under_b_11848.html

Hoyer is waging a not-so-secret, but oh-so-self-serving campaign to topple House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) and assume the top job in the Democratic Caucus - a job he has coveted since Pelosi beat him out for whip a few years back. And he's waging his campaign even though it is destroying his own party.

You don't need to look very far to see how Hoyer is doing everything he can to self-servingly undermine his party as a way to hurt Pelosi. In today's Washington Post, for instance, the paper reported that according to congressional sources, Hoyer "told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party." You might recall that last week it was Hoyer who, after Pelosi came out in support of Jack Murtha's plan for an exit strategy, was quoted in the Post saying withdrawal "could lead to disaster" - a statement only a Washington politician wholly out of touch with ordinary Americans could make, considering a disaster has long been unfolding in Iraq, and considering most Americans now support an exit strategy.

SNIP...

Finally, it has been Hoyer who has made a point of actively working against Pelosi on major congressional votes. You remember, it was Hoyer - the Democratic Whip - who refused to whip votes together to try to defeat the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement. When Pelosi tried to build opposition to the disgusting bankruptcy bill, it was Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, who not only didn't whip against the bankruptcy bill, but actually voted for it, after pocketing massive campaign contributions from the banking industry. While Pelosi was taking a stand by voting against the Iraq War, Hoyer was voting for the Iraq War. And when Pelosi worked to keep her caucus together in opposing the GOP Energy Bill, it was Hoyer who voted for the nauseating legislation after pocketing more than $300,000 from energy/natural resource industry cash. That legislation that literally gave away billions of taxpayer dollars to the energy industry profiteers who proceeded to bilk Americans with higher and higher gas prices.

MORE...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hoyers-campaign-to-under_b_11848.html

[flpoljunkie]

61. Thanks for posting this earlier reminder of Hoyer's duplicity from David Sirota. It bears reading.

[4dsc]

40. Who's Hoyer??

I've never heard of this person..

[flpoljunkie]

44. 4dsc, please read post#42 on "Who is Steny Hoyer?"

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

41. he blocked paper ballots amendment

I still lack trust for Hoyer.

He joined Bob Ney in blocking amendments to HAVA that would have
prohibited paperless electronic voting.

Perhaps he has some questionable ties to Ney, which could lead to
embarrassment down the road for Dems.

[diva77]

56. yes and his role as one of the principal authors of HAVA and an advocate

for paperless DREs has to put everyone on notice that politicians may end up being more accountable to voting machine vendors and elections officials than they are to the electorate. Beware! We cannot rest safely on yesterday's victory!! We need to return to hand counted paper ballots to ensure that elections are legitimate. Check out what they do in New Hampshire! (I know you know all of this already WYVBC)

[dakota_democrat]

43. Maybe I'm biased...

...but I'd like to see Earl Pomeroy (after last night will now be a 7th term Congressman from North Dakota) take a shot at it.

He has the House experience.

He's served on important committees during his 12 years so far.

He stays on message with the positive (notice his distinct lack of attack ads during his re-election campaigns).

He's loved in what's generally considered a heavily Republican state.

And, to be blunt, he probably has more of a capacity to reach "across the aisle" than Nancy Pelosi, because he's not a polarizing figure in Washington or the media.

He won't be the mouth of the house. He'll be the workhorse that the Democratic party needs to keep on task and enact change for the country...but I don't really see him taking a shot at it, which is a shame. He'd do an excellent job.

[WatchWhatISay]

46. Never heard of him. Who is well known, has the necessary experience and voted against the war?

Anybody know someone who fits these qualifications?

[Canuckistanian]

57. Steny who?

Yes, I know who he is.

But where the Hell has he been on truly progressive issues? Where has he EVER challenged the excesses of the Shrub regime?

Nowhere, that's where.

[Vidar]

60. Hoyer did such a great job as whip that I choose Murtha.

[Blue_Tires]

70. no chance