And Emanuel is pushing primary candidates who would probably vote for Hoyer before Pelosi.

This is going to be a long, ugly, bloody process. But the traitors to the Democratic party will have to be voted out before we can get at the traitors to our nation who are being protected by too many in the DC establishment.

You are doing historic work, DS.

The inescapable inference from the fact that, despite the record Sirota outlines, Hoyer is still in position as Whip, is that there is no majority among House Dems willing to oust him.

(Many may think his record is lousy, but fear the mayhem resulting from the consequent battle.)

What will happen in the 110th? Will Hoyer challenge Pelosi? Is there a loyal centrist who could challenge Hoyer and win? Is it necessary for party unity for the top two roles to be shared by one liberal and one centrist?

Clearly the result in November will have a large bearing on this: if, despite everything, the Dems fail to take control, perhaps a wholesale clearout will get rid of Hoyer, and inject fresh blood into the leadership. (Not necessarily blood more congenial to lefties, of course.)

If the Dems do win, the current leadership will run on their success - which may be hard to argue against.

On the other hand, the prize of being a Majority Leader (or Whip) may make aspirants all the more willing to mix it.

Interesting times ahead.

if you are in nyc, you really should hear Sirota talk more about the "hostile takeover" on May 10th at 6:30...The event is called Campaign '06: The Year of the Hostile Takeover? and it will be a conversation about why our middle class is disappearing and who is responsible. Placing pundits of different perspectives within the democratic party alongside one another should get you out next Wednesday night. Other panelists include Howard Wolfson, one of the most famed political consultants around. He has worked for some Democrats that Sirota has criticized in his work. Can they agree?

http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/events /unique_event.php?ID=38

I am not going to comment specifically on Steny Hoyer's comments about Stephen Colbert as I think both Bush and Colbert can take care of themselves.  However, I am becoming increasingly concerned about posts on the front page and in diaries bashing Dems.  

It reminds me of the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian when the 2 anti-Roman groups meet in the passages under the emperors palace and state - "we must fight the common enemy - the People's Front of Judeo", another anti-Roman group.  There is something in the Dems nature that makes us want to eat our own.

We need to be focused on beating the Repubs, not picking out the foibles of every Dem even if one happens to be in leadership.  There are a lot of things I am not happy about with the Dem party but I cannot stand another cycle of losing and letting the Repubs run this country further into the ground.  

You have to walk before you can run and you have to win before you can change things.  No minority party ever changed the world.  Let's focus on winning a majority in the House and Senate and then we can find a challenger to Steny Hoyer and others if we so choose.  One step at a time.

Sirota should really consider writing on the hostile takeover of Illinois District 6 by Ladda Duckworth and Rahm Emanuel.  Similar to Hoyer, Duckworth is also steeped in K-Street money.

All those of you who criticize and undermine Nancy Pelosi should consider that her positions are far, far more progressive than Hoyer's.  You don;t want him as the Minority Leader, much less as Speaker.  Be careful what you wish for.

I think you guys are really misjudging Hoyer. In the 25 years he's been representing his district, he's pushed for higher pay and more benefits for federal workers. He's extremely popular in his district, and has been rated among the top ten members in obtaining funding for local projects. He was the chief House sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, was a former chairman of the Helsinki commission, and is supposedly renowned as a champion of human rights. He's been plenty partisan as whip, too. When 11 democrats voted for the rule to consider the corporate tax bill, Steny came down on them hard. Chris Bell was responsible for filing the ethics complaints against Delay, but Steny was involved in filing the ethics complaint alleging blackmail in the prescription drug bill vote. And all that corporate money he's raised? He's been using it to supply democratic challengers, and he campaigned hard for them too. He's also come down on the left of many democrats when it comes to taxes, publicly telling people that he is thinking about eventually raising taxes on the middle class to fund more government programs. There is also a long record of Steny's attacks on Bush, so he isn't some Bush-lover either. I've personally met Steny, and he seems like a great guy. Along with John Dingell, he's one of the last of the old bulls from the O'Neill era,  and if he ever became Speaker, would probably be a throwback to that period in time. I don't think that's what democrats should be looking for right now, but I also don't think Steny is a traitor to the party.

None of this excuses Hoyer from speaking out against Murtha's plan, or not whipping the vote against CAFTA, or speaking out against Stephen Colbert when he didn't need to. Those are definately marks against him. However, a lot of you guys are making Hoyer out to be a lot worse than he really is. I don't see many who have honestly researched his record, or honestly considered what it would take to remove him. He's not vulnerable to a primary challenge, as he is very popular with his district. Although he lost to Pelosi for an open position, he also was unanimously elected whip. Not only is it a little counterproductive to talk about getting rid of Steny, its also going to be literally impossible to pull off, even if Steny was as bad as you said.

I misunderstood. I thought "Hostile Takeover" referred to the takeover of progressive blogs by book-pimping bloggers.

As a Democratic Leader Mr. Hoyer should have known enough to keep his mouth shut. Give me a break. As far as I'm concerned this just lost my vote for him.

The Democratic leadership is in disarray. I have found that this party, my party, does not represent me and my family anymore. The Green party represents my values much better. His attitude and defense of the president will not win elections in November. It will only show that he is a "flip flopper" and "not a strong leader". Maybe Mr. Hoyer should spend more time speaking out about the incompatence of the Republican leaders and more time speaking about what the Democratic party proposes if they were to lead. Also, in the whip position he should be also spending his time "whipping" the other Democrats in the house to get them to vote as a block. He has been a complete failure on this count. The Dems are all over the place.

Oso

"when given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican, voters will choose the real Republican every time."  Harry S. Truman

I guess this is a shining example of "power corrupts." In the late 70s, I lived in Maryland and followed local politics. Hoyer was loved by the yound dems back then. We saw him as the antidote to the old pol dems. He was young, liberal, and, it seemed, principled.

I left Maryland long ago, and haven't followed Hoyer's career, so I don't know how or when the transformation occurred, but it's depressing to compare the Hoyer of then to the Hoyer of now.

In fairness, that probably qualifies him for a leadership position in the Democratic establishment.

I think there is a difference between having a less than ideal voting record, and criticizing other Democrats, or defending the President when his approval rating is in the 30s, particularly if you are in a leadership position.

The Democratic Party has never had a particularly cohesive ideology, and there are many Democratic Congressmen and Senators who are elected from deep red areas, primarily to represent local interests.  These guys are just not going to vote with the party much of the time and that's fine.  You don't see much anger on the internet over Nelson of Nebraska, or Gene Taylor.

However, something more can be demanded by the netroots from Congressmen and Senators who represent blue areas, particularly if they are part of the leadership.  At least they should refrain from repeating the talking points of the other party!  And if they do, get them out of the leadership.  I don't think that is asking too much.  Keeping these guys around weakens the party overall by muddling its message.

Removing Hoyer from the whip position won't cost the Democrats any seats, and will probably gain votes since you won't have a the number two Democrat in the House who says not to criticize the leader of the opposing party.  Even if he was defeated in a primary, a loss of a seat is unlikely since he represents a gerrymandered Democratic district.  There are Blue Dogs where yeah, if they go the district is lost but not in this case.

Now this isn't a liberal or progressive party, so that inevitably means that if the leader is perceived to come from the liberal wing of the caucus, the whip must be a centrist.  However, I'm sure there are capable centrists who won't trample on the message so much and who won't undercut the leader.  Any suggestions?

He got vey little media attention, but as it was becoming clear that the GOP SS scheme was falling flat, Hoyar offered a "compromise" that raised the retirement age of Social Security.

Anotherwords , had we not already delievered the knockblow (through amazing Democratic unity , even Max Baucus,who was a major player in destroying Medicare with the Drug bill, strongly opposed the GOP SS schemes)then Hoyar would have been able to forge an agreement that gave the GOP EXACTLY what it wanted.The Cavuto/Limbaugh choice between "cutting benefits or raising the retirement age".

The national debt is going up so fast that the soon to be $3 trillion in the SS trust fund (which wont go down at all till 2018 )will be able to collect very high interest rates and especially if the economy only grows at 1.5%. Even if the economy grows at the typical 3% rate then the debt will still explode (though not as much if it grew less) The 1.5% economic growth rate is the reason GOP (and Liebermann) says the program will go broke in 2042.IMPOSSIBLE!

If the economy grows at 1.5% then the debt will increase $1 trillion per year (just at first then much more later with ever so snowballing debt) instead of the typical $600-$700 billion.Higher interest rates will be a must to attract investment in treasury bonds. SS will collect MUCH higher interest rates and since there will be trillions in SS debt holdings then 1.5% economic growth will deliever a very safe SS program.

If the ecomomy grows at 3% then SS will be safe till 2052 and that doesnt assume the fact that interest rates will skyrocket.Everybody knows that our exploive debt increases is only increasing every year and eventually the straw will break the camels back.Just will take longer than the "1.5%" growth rate.
(o and btw , under any circumstance, but especially the 1.5% GOP stated growth rate, the stock market would be a HORRIBLE investment for SS while federal treasury bonds would be golden)

Hoyar and Republicans know that the $3 trillion in SS debt will need to be paid back starting in 2018.So the "2018 crisis" we hear about is a FEDERAL crisis not Payroll Tax/Social Security crisis despite popular mythology to the contrary.Cut benefits or raise the retirment age and you help make the FEDERAL crisis a little more simple to solve since endless IOU's to SS wont cost the federal governemnt, up to its eyeballs in money it owes to seniors,a thing if people arent allowed to recieve benefits.Somebody could "owe me" $1 million and still be safe even with a yearly income of $15,000 if they arent required to pay me till Im 80 since Im only in my 20s.They would be in even better shape if they decide to move the goal posts even further back when I start to get near 80.

The US government helps create and develop an organization (Al-Qaeda) to get
foreign military invaders (the Soviets) out of Muslim Lands. Today that foreign military
 invader and occupier of muslim lands is the US. Why should the US Government be
 surprised that Al-Qaeda is now fighting the US Military Occupiers of Muslim Lands.
After the cold war the US government/military/industrial complex searched for a
 new world war and they think they have found one. Don't let them!! Contact
The New House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer who appears to support this
continued occupation at phone number 202-225-4131 or fax him at 202-225-4300!
DEMAND: STOP Funding This War and Get US Troops Out of Iraq's 1000 year civil war