The Note: The First Woman Speaker

— -- WASHINGTON, August 4

Ah, the perils of the sloppy use of the Outlook address book.

For reasons we cannot explain without getting our source in trouble, The Note was inadvertently sent this hot-off-the-presses memo from Democratic Congressman George Miller of California at the same time he e-mailed it to his friend (and his party's House Leader) Nancy Pelosi, also of the Golden State.

Miller is one of Pelosi's top political advisers, and a cagey veteran of the Capitol Hill wars. For those of you who don't know him, think one part Barney Frank, one part Steve Elmendorf, and one part CAA agent.

At a time when the big political question of 2006 is whether the Democrats will take back the House, Miller seems to be stepping forward to give his friend some advice about how she can further her goal of winning back the majority and becoming Speaker.

Reaction from Pelosi's office and Miller to this fake memo was not available by press time.

Here it is in its entirety:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: The Leader
From: George Miller
Re: Making you Speaker
Date: August 4, 2006

We are right on schedule. Coming out for ethics reform and bipartisanship, and against pork barrel spending and guaranteed chairmanships for Rangel, Waxman, and Conyers were really smart moves to clear away some doubts. But there is more to do.

First of all, the Republicans have the same polling we do: you are surprisingly well known in the districts that will decide if we will take control -- and seen as liberal by a surprisingly large percentage of the people in these same places.

Clearly you see our dilemma. Your political leadership and acumen are invaluable to the party (with some going so far as to say that they are without value altogether; but ignore them).

But while vision and strategery are welcomed by the party, you, yourself, unfortunately are a potential political liability.

So the question then becomes, how do we solve a problem like Pelosi? It's a tough question. You might as well ask: How do you catch a cloud and pin it down? How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand? But I digress.

We know Republicans can't wait to unloose their San Francisco Chronicle canon, starting with this quote from you in a profile published June 9, 1996: "I pride myself in being called a 'liberal,' so I'm not dodging that word." Ouch. Works for Peter Beinart. For a leader of a party trying to capture Purple districts, maybe not so much.

You were beginning to get the idea on "Meet" on Nov. 17, 2002, when you tried to avoid taking the bait from Brother Russert and demurred from his proposed construction that you are as liberal as Tom DeLay is conservative. Good work, but you said, "No. I believe that I may be more progressive than some of my colleagues, and be to the left of center." And let's just say the "No" isn't the part the Republicans are salivating over.

Later today, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman will give a tough speech to his party's national meeting in Minneapolis, where you were yesterday, and he is expected to say this about you:

"Who will be the next Speaker of the House, number three in the line of succession to the President? Will it be Denny Hastert, whose leadership is helping us take on the enemy, or Nancy Pelosi, who said less than a year after 9/11 'I don't really consider ourselves at war.' . . . As foreign jihadists call into the United States, do we do use NSA technology to stop sleeper cells before they hit us… or do we surrender the use of this technology, as Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean would have us do? . . . Picture Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who called the President 'an incompetent leader' and 'irresponsible.'"

We want to assure you we don't stand with those in our caucus who are privately proposing a "duck and cover" or "submersion" strategy, which basically calls for you to be invisible. This camp is too swayed by our own polling showing you are not an effective messenger, but they're in such a swivet about it that they might as well be followers of the Republican consultants who contend that your photo has Newt-like effects on small children.

No, Brendan and Jen didn't for nothing spend all these years massaging your image behind the scenes and prepping you for those Speaker-dry-run news conferences in your office so majestic it could almost belong to the majority. Except, of course, for all the huge White House-style bowls of roses.

It's too late for you to adopt the Harry Reid "vanilla" model. But we do think you can show yourself to be the asset that you truly are by doing something bold on substance and on style. You are indeed a lioness, and from that flows all.

On substance, we need to quickly find the opportunity for your Sister Souljah moment BUT it can't look staged or concocted, a contradiction in terms that even one of your favorite reporters, Patrick O'Connor of The Hill, might struggle to reconcile. And it needs to be big. So we're thinking you might support a trade bill on the grounds that it's good for national security and America's role in the world, as opposed to kowtowing to unions or some other Democratic interest groups.

It just can't be too clumsy. For instance, some members of our caucus aren't so wild about standing up for those prayers or moments of silence that Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) has been instituting at the beginning of caucus meetings. It bugs our members that Republicans wear their faith on their sleeves, and we don't need to be doing the same thing.

On the style side, we're thinking you might want to consider dressing down a bit -- almost casual Friday wear -- for some of your appearances. People always see you dressed to the nines, coiffed, made up in a parlor-like, high-ceilinged setting. It gives them the wrong idea about this grandmother, as Brendan and Jen have taken to styling you. Maybe one of our targets should be to get you into a Target. Soften you up, so voters can see the real you.

Finally, we have to address the unpleasant issue of whether there will be competition for Speaker if (strike that -- WHEN) we RECLAIM our majority. There could be a fight. The press doesn't get it, but Rahm is so cautious and smart that he's not going to challenge you unless he knows he'll win, and that's not clear from the head-counting we've done.

But you do have to watch your back with the Congressional Black Caucus. Some of them may not have been too wild about your clever pronouncement that ranking members would not automatically become committee chairs in the majority. We applauded your effort to defuse Republicans' plans to use ads and press hits to try to scare people about our chairs. It really offended us that some of those to be featured were African Americans, although the GOPpers have been very conscious of that issue and do not plan to feature more than one African American in any given ad or news release.

But not everyone in the CBC is looking at the big picture, and there could be trouble if they were up for grabs and joined forces with the Steny bloc. Remember: you might never have been Leader if it weren't for the California delegation. So we have to watch your back the way Senator Lieberman watches his around Senator Clinton. We're a little worried about someone like Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala./Rahm) -- moderate, well-liked by colleagues, Harvard magna cum laude and Harvard Law cum laude -- stepping out there and forming some coalition.

We're not too worried about it. You'll be hard to knock off if we pick up a few seats or get the majority. And if we lose a few, it'll probably be in moderate seats like that of Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa). So we'll probably still have most of our liberals, er, progressives, around.

So we're in don't-blow-it mode. THANK YOU for listening to these thoughts -- they're just aimed at making a strong leader stronger. We love you as Leader. We want to make sure all of America loves you as Speaker.

Remember: the Lioness does not get to sleep at night -- or during the day -- until November 8th!!!! We've got work to do.

Happy recess.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one can know yet how yesterday's death tax/minimum wage vote, yesterday's Iraq hearing, and today's (weakish) job numbers are going to play in the midterms, but we'll figure it all out over the weekend and let you know on Monday.

In the meantime, at the RNC's summer meeting in Minneapolis, MN, today the key open press events are an 11:30 am ET speech by RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman followed by a media availability at around 12:00 pm ET. Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN), the Republican Senate candidate who is airing an ad in Minnesota that describes him as "not much of a party guy," is the featured speaker at the RNC's member's luncheon at 2:12 pm ET.

Ryan Lizza of the New Republic explains why Kennedy is such an interesting speaker choice in his piece on how many GOP candidates are distancing themselves from the same POTUS they once hugged. LINK

When Mehlman speaks today, the RNC chair is expected to define the struggle against "radical Islam" thusly: "As we take on this new struggle, America faces a critical question: will we elect leaders who recognize we're at war and want to use every tool to win it, or politicians who would surrender important tools we need to win."

Today marks day two of President Bush's shortest summer vacation yet - he visits his ranch in Crawford, TX for the next nine days with plans to return to Washington, DC next Saturday, August 12, to tend to domestic and international affairs. After yesterday's stop in Mission, TX for a tour and speech on immigration, the POTUS plans to spend the coming week at the ranch with a quick trip to Wisconsin on Thursday, August 10 to stump for congressional candidate John Gard before returning to Crawford for an RNC fundraiser's barbecue on August 11. LINK