Although Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives in January there is a question if Nancy Pelosi will once again become Speaker of the House.
The question is enough for the likes of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Salon's Amanda Marcotte to raise the specter of sexism. Marcotte writes:
Frankly, the effort to undermine Pelosi is sexist, and not just because of the disdain so many display for the political talents of a woman who has been far more effective at the job than any of the men who've held it for decades. Ousting her would also be a blow to ordinary women and LGBTQ people whose concerns will lose priority status if the anti-Pelosi wing prevails.
Pelosi's effectiveness as Speaker is highly debatable. Yes, she was critical in ending a dozen years of Republican control of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms, but would fall from grace a mere four years later. So how effective could she have been? Pelosi was probably more effective than Jim Wright or Tom Foley, but Tip O'Neill? Be serious.
But the main problem with Marcotte's thesis is that Pelosi likeliest challenger is Ohio Congresswoman Marcia Fudge. Of course, Marcotte knows this and makes the dubious claim
that Fudge "is openly hostile to LGBTQ rights."
Honestly, I don't care who becomes Speaker of the House. But this reeks of desperation on the part of Pelosi's supporters. If Fudge has such hostility towards the LGBTQ community, I highly doubt she could entertain running for Speaker. And even if Fudge did exhibit such hostility it has absolutely nothing to do with sexism. The sexism card won't work for Nancy Pelosi any better than it did for Hillary Clinton.
ADDENDUM: It should be said that Fudge isn't above using the sexism and racism card as was the case six years ago when she said this is was what motivated the late John McCain's criticisms of then UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Today Fudge finds herself on the other end of the stick.
No comments:
Post a Comment