We still need Pelosi

The New York Times posts an editorial today, slamming Nancy Pelosi, suggesting it's a really bad idea for her to hold onto her leadership position in the House. It says in part:

That job is not a good match for her abilities in maneuvering legislation and trading votes, since Democrats will no longer be passing bills in the House. What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.

Does the NYT think there will be no horse trading in the back halls on Capitol Hill now that Boehner has the gavel? We still need a skilled negotiator as the minority party. And as Steve Benen points out, she did hold this position before and did very well at it.

The editorial goes on to say:

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...

Well maybe the NYT forgot that the false, anti-Pelosi caricatures were largely paid for by the influx of anonymous, corporate-based Citizens United spending. CNN tells me "more than $65 million was spent on 161,203 ads." Democrats simply didn't have the same cash advantage to push back. And how much ink did NYT give to her in the last four years? The media amplified every biizarre utterance of Boehner constantly, but I didn't see the same attention paid to Nancy. And why was she never on the TV, except when the reporters were giving free air time to anti-Pelosi ads? And how about the Sunday bobblehead shows? They were largely dominated by GOP over the last four years. They couldn't get enough of McCain and Lindsey Graham, but if Pelosi was invited and refused to appear, I never heard about it.

The editorial claims that she "seem[ed] to visibly shrink on camera when defending [her] policies," but I recall her triumphant march into the House, looking like an avenging angel, carrying that historic gavel during the health care reform war. Again, she just didn't get the attention she deserved for her accomplishments.

That raging independent backlash the editorial is concern trolling about is what elected the Tea Party types, but what beat the conservaDems was their failure to support their Speaker and the policy work the progressive voters mandated with the 08 sweep. Sure, the GOPers are running around crowing about how happy they are that she's running. But it sounds a bit like a B'rer Rabbit ploy to me. I suspect they're scared stiff of having to face her down and if she meekly bows out, they'll claim her scalp. If they want to win in 2012, the Democratic party would be fools to give it to them.