Their headline actually reads as follows: “Pelosi’s Effectiveness Is Not Rewarded.” No, I am not making that up:
Note that one of the authors is Official Gusher Faye Fiore, the same person who assured us in 2007 that Pelosi was a “conciliator” who “embraced a centrist agenda and built relationships with rivals.”
Today Fiore & Co. are a bit more realistic about Pelosi’s partisan legacy as Speaker, now taking the tack that she is indeed partisan . . . but was effectively partisan:
Historians predict she will go down with the likes of Sam Rayburn and Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill as one of the country’s most effective, albeit partisan, speakers. . . . . Congress could hardly be called do-nothing on Pelosi’s watch. She pushed to passage the most far-reaching healthcare overhaul since the creation of Medicare, an economic stimulus program and the revamping of financial regulations, often with little or no Republican support.
. . . .
If Pelosi was one of the country’s most effective House speakers, she was also one of its most polarizing. Despite promises of red and blue working together, signaled by the purple suit she wore at her swearing in, the age-old Washington tradition of the majority ignoring the minority prevailed with her in charge.
“The speaker might as well have posted a ‘Do Not Enter’ sign on the front of the Capitol,” Republican members of the House Rules Committee groused [Damn grousing Republicans! — Ed.] in a recent report.
Sounds a bit nonconciliatory. Sounds rather uncentrist.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious: looks like you were wrong in 2007, huh, Faye?
Now, as for the rest of the article . . . did Faye Fiore et al. ever consider that perhaps Pelosi’s effectiveness is being rewarded? That perhaps the loss of 60+ seats in the House was directly connected to the things that she and her pal Barry “accomplished”?
For the common-sense spin that the L.A. Times always seems to miss, I’m always here.