An article in Roll Call tonight on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to run for Minority Leader in the next Congress, one of several in Roll Call since this afternoon, extensively quotes unnamed “lobbyists and strategists” aligned with “moderate” Democrat Steny Hoyer as being opposed to Pelos’s bid.

The article notes that while the Speaker is expected to have a lock on the position:

lobbyists and strategists with close ties to moderate Democrats argue that Hoyer is better-suited than the more liberal Pelosi to lead House Democrats following Tuesday’s majority-losing electoral defeats, and there is a fear that Hoyer could be edged out of leadership completely in the 112th Congress, either by circumstance or by design.

One Democratic lobbyist described Pelosi’s move to Roll Call as “arrogant” and “the most ridiculous thing in the world.”

“You have to, at some point, look at yourself and realize that you just failed,” the lobbyist said.

Roll Call further reports that:

Pelosi’s announcement was followed in quick succession by the release of letters from Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) and Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra (Calif.) declaring their candidacies for their equivalent posts in the minority. Because there is one less leadership slot in the minority, Hoyer would be squeezed out.

“It looks very coordinated,” a Democratic strategist said.

“It’s clear that she has been maneuvering to cut Hoyer out of the leadership,” a Democratic lobbyist with ties to moderates said. The lobbyist said Pelosi’s actions show “a complete lack of integrity on her part to the loyalty that Steny Hoyer has shown to her.”

How is she being arrogant and exactly how does her advocating for herself reveal a lack of integrity?  I see a woman using her power to be strategic and run a smart campaign.  Is that a problem?  Did anyone ever refer to New Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, Tip O’Neill, Jim Wright or Tom Foley as being arrogant for using strategic planning to advance their own cause?

And besides Pelosi’s “arrogance,” could there be other issues at hand?

This election was determined in part by unprecedented amounts of money spent by corporations and undisclosed donors to ultra-conservative campaigns, after two years of relentless vilification of both Speaker Pelosi and President Obama by the ultra-right media machine.

The Sunlight Foundation reports that in the wake of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court outside groups raised and spent $126 million on the midterms without disclosing the source.  Moreover:

The $126 million in undisclosed money represents more than a quarter of the total $450 million spent by outside groups. Add the $60 million spent by groups that were allowed to raise unlimited money, but still had to disclose, to the undisclosed money and the total amount of outside money made possible by the Citizens United ruling reaches $186 million or 40 percent of the total spent by outside groups.

Here’s what I see:

You’ve got the Republicans coming into power in the House with an agenda to basically undo everything that has been done in the past two years legislatively and otherwise, on the heels of an election in which more than unprecedented amounts of money were spent to aggressively oust Democrats, and to elect far right Republicans and Tea Party candidates, some of which viciously targeted Pelosi.  You’ve got Hoyer, who works closely with and even sometimes argues on behalf of conservative Democrats, which was the case with Bart Stupak’s bid to deny women essential health care services, and who is basically favored by the Republicans because he is more sympathetic to “conservatives” and “moderates” whatever those terms actually mean; and now you’ve got K Street lobbyists–who represent and are funded by the very corporations who now don’t have to disclose their funding of campaigns–calling the Speaker of the House “arrogant,” and lamenting that Hoyer would be more sympathetic to their cause.

What cause is that?

According to a lobbyist:

Many on K Street were also hoping for new leadership at the top of the ticket. “We’d much rather have Hoyer — he understands employers and employees,” one lobbyist said.

I get it.  Special interests, possibly also fueled by undisclosed money see a harder time getting “compromise” between the Republican agenda and Pelosi as leader.

They appear to be very worried:

“At a time when we should be trying to figure out how to work together to go forward, she is instigating a situation that will just tear the Caucus apart and leadership fights at the worst possible time,” the lobbyist said.

So lobbyists are deciding how Congresspeople should work together to go forward?  Isn’t it the job of elected officials to determine how the Caucus of elected officials is run?  Why are lobbyists inserting themselves into this discussion now?

Moreover, it is clear that Pelosi does indeed have support; if she did not, she would not win.

According to Roll Call, Pelosi’s announcement was followed in quick succession by the release of letters from Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) and Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra (Calif.) declaring their candidacies for their equivalent posts in the minority.

 And “Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who worked with Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) to gauge Pelosi’s support in the Caucus before the Speaker announced her intentions, argues that Pelosi is a unifying force.”

Pelosi “has listened to the concerns of all our diverse Democratic Members, and worked tirelessly to mold a consensus that keeps our party and our country moving forward,” DeLauro said in her endorsement.

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) called Pelosi “a consensus-builder who listens to and respects all sides.”

Meanwhile the misnamed “moderates” apparently also worry that:

“Democrats’ ability to recruit in conservative districts will be depressed with Pelosi at the helm. [And] Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) asserted this week that he would be better than Pelosi at recruiting candidates in swing districts and suggested he might challenge her for Minority Leader.”

Fortunately, for a range of issues including women’s health and rights, Shuler–an anti-choice, C-Street member–is now in the minority. 

Reading between the lines I see a group of men not used to not being in control; a worried minority group of Democrats more often more closely aligned with conservative Republican interests on a range of issues than with the progressives they’ve succeeded in marginalizing the past two years with the help of the White House; and a strong and powerful lady Speaker who has a more progressive vision for the party and for the country.

Maybe with Minority Leader Pelosi, there actually will be a Democratic Party back in the House after all.