© National Journal Group Inc.
Wednesday, May 28, 2003

Twelve seats is a lot. Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., admits that. During a lengthy May 15 interview in her Capitol office with National Journal Group reporters, Pelosi conceded that the size of the Republicans' current House majority presents a significant challenge. She agreed that it isn't easy for House Democrats to influence legislation, or for them to get their message heard over the din of the White House's media operation. And she candidly acknowledged that Democrats face "a long road" to regain House control -- and that they might not succeed in 2004, a decade after their ouster. Edited excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: You have made clear that your ambition is not to be minority leader, that you want to be the first woman House speaker.

My confidence springs from the caliber of leadership among our caucus, and what an enormous resource they are to the country.

A: No, my lifelong ambition is to have the Democrats be in control.

Q: Why do Democrats need to achieve that goal?
A: It's absolutely urgent for the Democrats to take back the House, because of the issues. The issues are what draw us to politics, and to public service, whether you talk about economic security for American families, access to quality health care, protecting the environment, protecting our country and our people in every way. As I have said over and over again, where we can find our common ground [with Republicans], we must make that attempt to do so; where we can't, we must stand our ground. It's important for the Democrats to win because of the stark contrasts between the Democrats and Republicans on so many issues, especially related to the economic security of the American people.

Some of us take issue with the idea that we can go into a campaign without a message. I have told Democrats across the country that never again will Democrats go into a campaign without the public's knowing what we stand for, how different we are from Republicans, and what we are willing to fight for. How do we win? One district at a time.

Q: Are you frustrated that the Democrats' message is not getting through?
A: You don't hear any frustration from me, because I know that it's a long-term thing. Frustration is not anything that I engage in. I understand that it's a long road that we're on, and that it takes reinforcement of the message. In 2002, there was no Democratic message about economic growth. In 2000, instead of having a heralding of the economic success of the Clinton years, that didn't take place. When I say to my colleagues that we have to put out our Democratic message, we are starting on top of a number of elections when that was not being put forth.

Elections are not just about what happens on Election Day. When I was chair of the party in California, I always said to my candidates: "Who wins the election, that's up to the electorate. Who wins the campaign, that's up to you." We certainly want to win the election. And if we don't win it this time, we must win it next time. But we must always be making progress.

We are going forth with a Democratic message -- with a Republican president, a Republican Senate, a Republican House, where all the attention is focused on what are they going to decide, because they have the majority. We have to find our place to put our message out there. It's not as if we can build on what we had out there in the past election, or in the election before that. I have a clear understanding that we have some foundation to lay ourselves, in terms of credibility and clarity on our economic message.

Frustration would come from a high expectation and a low outcome. My expectations were not that high. My expectations were that it's a long road. It requires reinforcement, clarity, and consensus. If there is a frustration level, it is that you [in the news media] are not covering it adequately -- that's the world we live in. I'm not into complaining. We will create our own environment, and we will get our message out.

Q: Still, it must be sobering when you look at the difficulties your party faces in winning back the House majority.
A: I never thought it would be easy. I always knew it would be a challenge. The response that we are receiving from Democrats across the country has been very positive. They have been very enthusiastic in their support. My confidence springs from the caliber of leadership among our caucus, and what an enormous resource they are to the country.

I have a very clear view of how difficult this would be. Twelve votes is a significant number. Losing six seats [in 2002] was sobering. We intend to win these seats, one seat at a time. We intend to do it with strong grassroots support that is attracted to us because of a clear message. We intend to be adequately funded, though we'll never have as much money as the Republicans. We will have the grassroots. We will have the financial resources. We will have the message. And we will have what's most important: the right candidate.

Our caucus is very unified. They have a spring in their step. They know it's a long haul and that it will be hard work. We don't know how popular the president will be in [November 2004]. But we do know that we have a discrete opportunity in a minimum of 20-some districts to draw a distinction, to tell the voters what the record is of these members of Congress, for people who present themselves as moderates in moderate districts but vote a very radical right-wing agenda, and their constituents are not very aware of that.

Q: Where do you fit into the effort to capture the majority?

I don't think we necessarily have to have a different position on national security. But I do think that some differences on homeland security are emerging.

A: Nancy Pelosi, as leader, has two jobs. My day job, of course, is to be the legislative leader for Democrats here in the House. We have to put forth clear and credible proposals legislatively and to build consensus -- our three C's. We had 100 percent of Democrats voting against the president's budget, an overwhelming number of Democrats voting against the president's tax plan, and 100 percent support for our economic stimulus plan.

The same holds true in my night job. During the Easter recess, I was in eight cities. Every place I go, I bring this Democratic message, and we get tremendous support, both on the political side and on the fund-raising side. I've gotten an overwhelming response around the country to Democrats being bold and clear in what we stand for, as well as a level of excitement for a woman leader with strong Democratic credentials.

Q: How do you measure success?
A: Politics is an on-the-ground game. If you are not attracting crowds, raising money, and getting some good publicity, you would have to examine how you are going about it. And I want to create an atmosphere where we attract the very best candidates. I am encouraged by the people who are stepping forth.

Q: To what extent can Democrats play up the votes cast in the Republican-controlled Congress to create a message?
A: I have a realistic view of the public perception of what goes on in Congress. Politically, there is a small space in the public mind for it. A lot of it is occupied by the White House. We have to recognize that reality. But it's a building phenomenon. We work together in our caucus to have the most consensus, and still to have a boldness in our message. And unity is a message in itself.

I know that it's hard to get through to the public. But I also know that the public has its own experiences. And many of them are experiencing uncertainty in the workplace, uncertainty about health care, uncertainty about their children's education and the quality of it. They are looking for answers. As we build our clear and credible alternatives, the public will see that we are in stark contrast to the Republicans. I'm not saying that it's easy. You don't expect success overnight. You just try to put one foot down in front of another. Over time, I think the public will see the difference.

We have built a communications center that will amplify our message in a way that hasn't been done before. First, we deal with how we communicate among ourselves here. I don't like to have meetings just to have meetings. I have them more geared to a purpose. I call it the giant kaleidoscope: One set of people will be at one meeting, then the subject will change, and some of the same people will be there, but there could be a whole new cast of characters. In the course of a month, all the members will be participating.

Q: How do you differentiate the Democratic position on national security issues from that of the president?
A: I don't think we necessarily have to have a different position on national security. But I do think that some differences on homeland security are emerging. I don't see the administration acting in a manner consistent with what we know would work. We want to put forth some goals that we hope [the White House] would support, in addition to adequately funding certain initiatives that there is clear recognition that we need to address, whether it's communication among [emergency] first-responders, issues that relate to acquisition of plutonium in the world, issues that relate to port security. We have not been able to convince the administration to appropriate the funds.

In a larger sense, Democrats have supported our men and women in uniform. Democrats support weapons systems that work, and know that some choices have to be made. Democrats take their responsibility to protect and defend the American people very seriously.

Q: Is it a problem politically for Democrats that Republicans want to talk about the war on terrorism?

I would not want to leave the impression that because we have not found weapons of mass destruction, it was not a worthy sacrifice.

A: We would not like to see the national security issue be a political issue. We don't have to be in disagreement with the president on national security. But we have to be viewed as credible on national security. And we have a responsibility to protect the American people. As I said, one place where we may have our differences -- but I hope not -- is on homeland security.

Q: What would your response be if no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq?
A: People have lost their lives. I would not want to leave the impression that because we have not found weapons of mass destruction, it was not a worthy sacrifice. So, I don't place a high premium on it. I said from day one that the intelligence did not support the threat [from Iraq] that the administration was putting forth, in terms of weapons of mass destruction. As far as chemical and biological weapons, it's a very dangerous neighborhood. A number of countries in the region are developing those programs. It would be likely that Iraq would have them too. They may be found. They may not. But I would not want to diminish in any way the sacrifice of those who went and fought.

Q: Did the president mislead us?
A: I would never characterize the president taking us into war as misleading us, because it's just too serious a decision for him to make. We just have to go beyond this, though other countries will not. But the sacrifice has been made.

Q: Would you consider this a pre-emptive strike by the United States?
A: I completely disagree with the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. It had no debate in the Congress. In my conversations with the White House, they said this was not a pre-emptive strike. It was the continuation of a long process of [stemming] weapons of mass destruction, of resolutions at the United Nations... and this was a consequence of that process.

Q: If the new tax bill accelerates income-tax-rate cuts, many of the Democratic presidential candidates say they support pulling back on those cuts. Do you think that is a good idea?
A: We need a full debate on whether these tax cuts make any sense in terms of our indebtedness. With these tax cuts, all of them -- none of them is affordable. Democrats had a child care tax credit, but we paid for it. The [Republican] tax package is unaffordable, because they don't pay for it. They only add to the deficit.

The [presidential] candidates will have to say what they believe. They have a large number of outside validators who say that these tax cuts are not job-creators or contributors to the growth of the economy. They have to get the public's attention. I know that they will, because people have uncertainty about their jobs.

Q: There has been talk of you being nominated for vice president on the 2004 Democratic ticket. Have you taken yourself out of consideration?
A: I'm not interested.

Q: You recently endorsed Dick Gephardt for president. What do you make of the fact that fewer House Democrats have endorsed him so far than did at this point in the 1988 campaign?
A: We were excited by the press conference that we had for Dick Gephardt. We had a cross section of people with all kinds of diversity: philosophical, political, geographic, generational. That was a pretty powerful group. I think that Dick Gephardt will win. The people who were there are politically astute. It was a real show of strength. In politics, like everything, it's an expectation game. We have not seen the last of the endorsements of Dick Gephardt.

Q: How do you get along with Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle? How often do you chat with him?

I have told Democrats across the country that never again will Democrats go into a campaign without the public's knowing what we stand for, how different we are from Republicans, and what we are willing to fight for.

A: We get along fine. Tom Daschle and I have been friends for a long time. In 1985-86 [before being elected to the House], I was the first finance chairman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and we turned a Republican Senate into a Democratic Senate. Tom Daschle was one of our races that year.

He is a great leader. I respect him enormously. He was very helpful at the beginning of this year, when we did not even have a full complement of staff. We have had a number of press conferences together. We meet fairly regularly. We have an excellent rapport. But it's not just about the two of us, but the consensus that we have of the Senate and the House.

Q: How is your relationship with House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay?
A: It's good. We probably couldn't disagree more on the issues; what the Republicans are doing is very destructive. And now, with [Republicans in control of] the White House -- they must be stopped. Having said that, we all served together in the House when none of us were in the leadership.

Tom and I served together on the Appropriations Committee, and we had a friendship. With Dennis, we used to have our tensions on the issue of Black Hawk helicopters to Latin America [to combat drug traffickers], which was his goal in life. But he is a lovely man in a very amicable way. We have a good rapport, and we try to keep communication going. I will let him know when I have a problem with something, or I try to give him heads-up that something is coming.

Q: Do House Republican leaders play fair themselves?
A: Part of my good rapport with the speaker is not to respond to such a question. [She laughs.] We have a responsibility to the American people to work together to the extent that we can. Part of my growing up [as a child] was to learn to respect people for the views that they have, as I want them to respect me for my views, and to respect the people who sent us here.

I don't carry a lot of baggage with me, of what they did yesterday, that I'm going to remember. Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow is a new day. My expectations are low. [She laughs again.] So, what's the disappointment?

[ Insider Interview Archives ]

Need A Reprint Of This Article?
National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 877-394-7350.