Tom Foley, Speaker of the House 1989-1995, died today.
Foley was enormously popular within the House during the 1980s, at least among Democrats, as he moved from Ag Committee Chair to Whip to Majority Leader to Speaker. He was an excellent Member of Congress, and as far as I know was quite effective at those jobs.
As Speaker, he acquired a reputation of being more liked than effective, and I think that was generally fair. The rise of Newt Gingrich wasn't his fault; if anything, he at least slightly opened up opportunities for the minority party in the House to participate meaningfully. And moving power back from the Speaker's office to the committees was good. Still, however, the general sense was that he didn't co-ordinate the Democratic majority as well as he should have.
(I was a young'n House staffer when Foley was Whip, and I can definitely attest to his reputation on the Hill at that point; I met Foley after he had left office, and I found him both a very nice man and very generous with his willingness to talk to grad students as if we were real people.)
Whatever his problems as Speaker, Foley deserves to be remembered as a patriot who worked hard to make his nation better as he saw it. US political culture, alas, undervalues Congress in general and important Congressional leaders in particular. Foley was an excellent Member of the House for many years; that's actually a big deal, and worth celebrating.
Showing posts with label Tom Foley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Foley. Show all posts
Friday, October 18, 2013
Monday, March 15, 2010
MMM
I recommend Pete Davis's tribute to Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky. I should note, however, that the fact that political junkies know her name today, over fifteen years after her critical vote, is yet another sign that Tom Foley wasn't a very good Speaker of the House.
I suppose that Nancy Pelosi and the House whip operation are probably somewhat busy this week, but I do hope that they make time, or assign someone, to orchestrate the actual voting on the House floor for health care reform. You know, so that some poor vulnerable first-term Member doesn't have to be identified as "the" vote that put health care over the top. Now, I should back up a bit...first of all, I do not expect health care reform to be politically toxic in November; unlike the Clinton budget, which was pretty much all pain, health care reform has plenty of specific benefits for Members to tout, as the White House has been emphasizing recently. And I do remember reading somewhere (sorry, no citation) that the Speaker has been trying to win by at least two votes, to avoid the problem of a single Member putting controversial legislation "over the top."
Which is all very well and good and all, and perhaps the Speaker will get this done with plenty of votes to spare after all, but it not...I assume that the logical person to cast the vote that gets them to 216 would be John Dingell. Or Nancy Pelosi, herself. Or Henry Waxman. Or perhaps Patrick Kennedy, clutching some talisman that belonged to his father. Or a parade of them. And before that, make sure that the last supposedly undecided Member to cast a vote for the bill is either in a safe seat or retiring.
(Yes, of course, it's very easy to overstate the importance of this sort of thing; for all I know; MMM was doomed regardless of her vote on the budget, let alone how it was portrayed. Still, might as well get the details right, no?).
I suppose that Nancy Pelosi and the House whip operation are probably somewhat busy this week, but I do hope that they make time, or assign someone, to orchestrate the actual voting on the House floor for health care reform. You know, so that some poor vulnerable first-term Member doesn't have to be identified as "the" vote that put health care over the top. Now, I should back up a bit...first of all, I do not expect health care reform to be politically toxic in November; unlike the Clinton budget, which was pretty much all pain, health care reform has plenty of specific benefits for Members to tout, as the White House has been emphasizing recently. And I do remember reading somewhere (sorry, no citation) that the Speaker has been trying to win by at least two votes, to avoid the problem of a single Member putting controversial legislation "over the top."
Which is all very well and good and all, and perhaps the Speaker will get this done with plenty of votes to spare after all, but it not...I assume that the logical person to cast the vote that gets them to 216 would be John Dingell. Or Nancy Pelosi, herself. Or Henry Waxman. Or perhaps Patrick Kennedy, clutching some talisman that belonged to his father. Or a parade of them. And before that, make sure that the last supposedly undecided Member to cast a vote for the bill is either in a safe seat or retiring.
(Yes, of course, it's very easy to overstate the importance of this sort of thing; for all I know; MMM was doomed regardless of her vote on the budget, let alone how it was portrayed. Still, might as well get the details right, no?).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
