Swamp Things: Pelosi’s Bench Rolls Over on Iraq
MORE
The National Observer
Gullible voters keen to treat the onset of the 2008 primary season as a hale sign of life in the American democratic system had best avert their gaze from Capitol Hill this week. For as Congress winds down the year’s business with earmark-laden appropriations bills and unsightly cave-ins to Bush prerogative after Bush prerogative, the governing metaphor is not the campaign scene’s notorious horse race—something that, for all its by-the-numbers familiarity, at least connotes forward motion. The most fitting template for Congress, rather, is the La Brea Tar Pits—a place where doomed life-forms absently topple into the sticky abyss, with only their outward frames preserved for puzzled generations centuries down the line.
The Democrats now masterminding the 110th Congress, after all, stunned observers last November by sweeping into majorities in both the House and Senate on vows to end the dismal U.S. engagement in Iraq and bring desperately needed honesty and transparency to government. Little more than a year later, Nancy Pelosi’s House and Harry Reid’s Senate have, after much righteous huffing and puffing, rolled over on all the White House’s war-funding measures, failing to approve any timeline for a troop withdrawal from Iraq. The latest Congressional timeline appeared under the magisterial title, “The Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.” But after the House passed it, the Senate proved neither orderly nor responsible enough to defeat a cloture motion. So after entertaining more than a dozen legislative proposals for exit strategies and timelines, the Democratic 110th has functioned in exactly the same fashion as its Republican predecessors—the only difference being that the G.O.P. majorities moved war-funding measures with the alacrity of short-order cooks, whereas Ms. Pelosi’s Democrats seem to favor the slow food movement.
By her own admission, Ms. Pelosi underestimated how deeply her Republican colleagues were invested in the continued occupation of Iraq. At a recent press conference, the speaker marveled that they hadn’t “shared the view of so many of our people that we needed a new direction in Iraq”; that in fact Republicans “like” the war, politically speaking—and so she’s reluctantly concluded “that this is not just George Bush’s war. This is the war of Republicans in Congress.”
As is typical of Beltway news cycles, Ms. Pelosi’s comments sparked a meaningless furor over the idea of her loyal opposition liking the war. And so—fortunately for her—she had to issue a mild clarification, permitting the whole thing to blow over before anyone gave much thought to how dunderheaded the substance of this appraisal was. Surely no other recent speaker assumed, coming into power, that the majority party would automatically win consent from the new minority party solely on the grounds that “so many of our people” would nudge them that way. How had Ms. Pelosi been occupying herself in 2002, when Karl Rove’s campaign machine used the mythic threat of a WMD-armed Iraq to cruise to historic pickups in a midterm cycle? Had she napped through the gruesome 9/11 mournography of the G.O.P.’s 2004 New York convention?
Of course “this is the war of Republicans in Congress”; it’s how many of them managed to hang on to their jobs. Expecting that dynamic to magically change based on the ’06 midterm results is tantamount to making the voters do the Democratic leadership’s job. Apparently, Ms. Pelosi thinks that the shiny ’06 mandate functions as a get-out-of-conference card that will spare them the hard work of arm-twisting and deal-brokering to win some progress toward a pullout—and facing up to the hard political consequences of getting an actual troop withdrawal on track. Even Dick Cheney, who for all his executive branch blood lust remains a close student of House power plays, recently told a trio of interviewers from the Politico that he’d been astonished at the failure of the Democrats to wield any “big stick” in the Iraq funding battles. “I’m frankly surprised at why, after all of the efforts they’ve made to try to hook up various provisions on Iraq to the spending bill, they’ve been unsuccessful.”
Meanwhile, as major party leaders have been professing all this surprise at each other, the all-too-familiar appropriations on the Hill grind on as they always have. Yes, Congress did enact ballyhooed new disclosure rules to bring more of the grisly practice of earmarking—i.e., the last-minute introduction of parochial spending projects likely to enhance an incumbent lawmaker’s reelection prospects into the parliamentary clusterfuck known as the appropriations process. But that’s done nothing to slow the brisk trade in earmarking—especially for appropriations subcommittee lords such as Pennsylvania Democrat Jack Murtha and Democrats who narrowly took seats from the G.O.P. side last cycle. As my CQ colleague Jonathan Allen has reported, the Appropriations Committee fielded more than 33,000 earmarks request from lawmakers this year. But even Congress can only sluice so much pork into awaiting home-district barrels; the Appropriations Committee only summoned the scratch for one-fifth of this year’s earmark requests. When the House Appropriations chairman made the impolitic suggestion of meeting the White House’s proposed discretionary spending cap of $933 billion by simply pulling the plug on all pending earmarks, he was all but hooted off the stage—by Congressional leaders of both parties. Indeed, just as the appropriations melee was heaving into its final phase, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell—a lawmaker who’s never met an industry PAC or special-interest boondoggle he didn’t adore—was already airing campaign ads in his home state of Kentucky touting his prowess in pulling down some $200 million in earmarks.
Mr. McConnell’s chief enforcer, the outgoing minority whip, Trent Lott, tried a bit more subtly to depict Obey’s proposal as an affront to singing-senator-style chamber decorum. “All it would do is make people mad and delay everything,” Mr. Lott pouted. And Ms. Pelosi is falling incoherently into line as it seems only she can. As Congress prepared on Monday to hit most every item on the White House’s wish list—including a likely Senate amendment for $70 billion in unconditional war funding, the speaker burbled that the appropriations package “will meet the standards we talked about, which is the president’s number, our priorities.” In other words: Whatever, we got the system juiced for the next election cycle, and put off any real fiscal reckonings into the next fiscal year.
And they say that bipartisanship is dead?
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.9
- 43.3
- Obama +3.6
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 52.6
- 34.4
- +18.2
- McCain
- 51.2
- 34.2
- +17.0
"clusterfuck"? What the f***! I do not appreciate this kind of crap in a newspaper piece, as if we were standing around at the water cooler discussing this. Mr Lehmann has bef*cked himself on this one, trying to seem hip, but coming off only as a vulgarian. How old are your editors there--25?
Change, not this year. All those promises made in 06, became the broken promises of 07. Hey, clean-up you language. An I'm sorry is in order.
Have to agree with Mr. Kildow. Profanity in print has its place--and I rather like the offending expression myself-- but as much as it may be a colourfully accurate description of reality, it's not appropriate for use in any publication leaning serious.
That was the most colorful way of crying because you are not getting what you want. I am sorry you are a democrat and believed the tripe. Now stop complaining and enjoy reaping what you sow.
Mr Kildow -
You have made the understandable mistake of assuming that this is actually journalism. I enjoy the NY Observer for it's entertainment value, but in addition to the pinch of salt required to accept any facts accidentally recorded here, you must also suspend the expectation of fairness, objectivity and decorum.
A clear declaration for the 1st amendment - Freedom to Speak whatever crap floats to the top.
The "failures" of the Democratic Congress is actually a vicious circle they can't escape from as long as the Executive Branch is under Republican control. Without enough votes in either chamber to override a Bush veto (note how his veto pen wasn't whipped out until after the 'O6 elections), the only power they have is to cut the funding for the war.
That of course, would be political suicide. One can imagine the glee with which GOP candidates would use that in this election cycle. If the voters truly want a change in the Iraq fiasco, the election of a Democratic President and Congress is crucial in '08.
If you want a real leader in Congress, check out Allen West. He wants to eliminate the deficit, move this country towards real energy independence, stop the flow of illegal immigration, and include Israel in NATO. Look at his site and see for yourself.
www.allenwestforcongress.com
If you support his ideas, donate whatever you can to his campaign and end sell out of America to special interests.
Whenever a party wins the House, they do it by winning districts that are pretty much evenly divided. When they are a minority, they are dominated by the hardcore. But even given this dynamic, let's face it - Pelosi is terrible. We would all be in better shape if Hoyer had won the job. Yet another example of how much we republicans benefit as the democrats retreat into the dead end of identity politics.
p.s. its hard to agree or disagree with the posters so far since most gave no actual reasons.
The myth that the American people wanted immediate withdrawal and a formalized defeat in Iraq was the problem. Democrats set out to please a wealthy, noisy minority rather than fashion realistic new policies. That was the failure. Not GOP intransigence.
Instead of embracing Petraeus to do what Bush should have done along time ago and then get us out of there and thus taken the baton of leadership, Democrats have set themselves up as the defeat-wishing twits who treacherously sniped at someone shaping up to be one of the most successful American generals ever.
Democrats pissed away a chance for moral authority on spending reform, earmarks and pork. Democrats talk high taxes on 'the rich' but their donor base now has more wealthy individuals than the GOP so it will be the same game that leaves the middle class hung out to dry and ready for a new Reagan within a single election cycle.
Harry Reid is a 4th rate man with no vision, no principles and a very nasty partisan temperament. If Trent Lott or Mitch McConnell were as snarky and personal as Reid, the media would never let up on them for poisoning the tone in Congress.
Ms. Pelosi is a lightweight whose management style sucks. She is no Sam Rayburn or Tip O'Neill. Little bursts of San Francisco leftishness without first consulting her members then retreating in a huff blaming the GOP appears to be her MO.
Why is anybody surprised that this Congress was a joke? In method, ideology, intellectual depth and character it was always going to be both ineffectual and ugly.
That squishing sound you just heard was the radical left wing, blame America first, hope for defeat portion of the democratic party being thrown under the bus. The best thing about it is that it was there own party that did it. The congress/senate have done nothing substantial to end the war, none of the leading democratic contenders have promised that they will withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of their first term. Also, 2 of the dem contenders for pres voted for the use of force measure against Iraq.
Hey Moveon.org, Code Pink and Kossaks-have you noticed? Your politicians are not delivering the goods. I hope for an American victory in Iraq, which is forthcoming. After that, a democratic, secular, capitalistic, stable country will emerge in the heart of the Middle East. What do you hope for?
This article is notable for two reasons: (1) Finally, somebody on the left has noticed that the paleo-libs from the fringe are, metaphorically speaking, dinosaurs: large, loud, small-brained and too set in their ways to adapt to changing times. (2) It perfectly illustrates my proposition that the left is unable to engage in serious political discussion without using the "f" word. (Apparently, the "f" word is code for "I'm a socialist.")
As for those who think the only answer in Iraq is to elect a Democratic president and veto proof majority, deal with this sobering fact: if the current course of affairs continues, by the time the election of 2008 rolls around, Iraq will be done as an election issue and many if not most of the troops will already be on their way home. (Also deal with the facts that with today's gerrymandered, challenger-proof congressional districts, a veto-proof majority in the House is unattainable, and with unproportionate representation in the Senate and the preponderance of "red" states", a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate is likewise unattainable for Democrats.)
Iraq is already dying as an election issue. If you're hoping that changes, what are you really hoping for?
Not trying to sound like a sexist but 'put a woman in charge of the House and watch the disastrous results." I'm ashamed of residing in the same state as Nancy Pelosi, a Speaker who could do SO MUCH but has done so little...
Hey, I admit it, I like the war, but I don't like Mrs. Pelosi's insinuation. I like the war because it threw out a bloody dictator. I reckon fewer poeple have died and are living in misery because of this war, and not the opposite. This is the humane attitude to take, in my humble and fallible opinion, and people who have supported the war and this President in good faith will be offended by the tone of this article and the common vulgarity of its opponents, for whom such filthy language is normal. Does that make me a neo-con troglodyte? What it makes me is an ex-liberal.
The biggest factor here is, that Moveon.org does not own as much of the Democratic party as they thought they did.
It will be interesting to see how that plays in 2008.
What ponderous prose!
Of course the content is weak. I mean the writing too. The sentences are far too long and filled with all kinds of awkward locutions.
This writer like so many on the left are trying to spin the results of the 06 election into a mandate on the war. There were three issues taht drove the 06 election. The war, is actually two, and included those who opposed it in principle and those who opposed how it was being waged. There is also the outrage of the fiscal conservatives who were frustrated by the excesses of the republicans. Lastly the perception, correct as it may be, that the repubs have been incompetent. Failed ss reform, a goofy immigration plan, Harriet Myers, Scooter Libby and a slough of other dumb things contributed to this perception. Of the three the war had the least effect on the election. Those who oppose the war out of principle had never been and would never be supporters of the republican party. It was the republicans who were agitated about poor war execution, spending excesses and percieved incompetence that drove the 06 election. Stepping it up in Iraq and holding firm on spending will likely be enough to change the tide in 08.
Mr. Lehmann also assumes that the politics of the electorate does not change. They do. He assumes that politicians do not believe that voters change their sentiments - even Democrats understand that much. So the fact that the electorate has changed its sentiment about Iraq - in the face of Bush/Petreus's stunning success, now only a tiny minority demand an exit now - escapes him. But it has not escaped Pelosi and company, despite their limitations. If they were to pull the plug now on the war, they would be swept from office. They understand it. The republicans understand it. Only the denizens of the NYObserver lack the brainpower to match the quite low intellectual standard set by members of Congress. Remarkable.
I love the splenetic Ueber-moron Kildow's sophomoric spew of obscenities accusing the editors of being under 25 years old.
Kildow apparently hasn't reached the age of reason himself.
Socialist Democrats, which is a more accurate discription than just Democrats, think because a majority of Americans agree with them on one or two social issues they also agree with them on everything else. That's just not true. The dems failed to accept that our citizens don't want to be overrun by illegal aliens, don't want to pay for their education and healthcare, they don't want to surrender in a war against terrorist hell bent on destroying us, and they don't want to be taxed into oblivion. Nancy San Francisco and Harry the cowardly lion do not care about what we want and they will stop at nothing to promote their socialist agenda.
I understand the great disappointment Democratic voters have with Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid and with gutless rank-and-file Democratic members in both Houses. I'd like to encourage Democrats to toss out the bums and to eschew Democratic candidates in the 2008 election and to, instead, vote for candidates in alternative parties in the manner of a protest!
Pleeeeease?... :)
Soggy in CA has made a perceptive & accurate assessment.
If the dizzy & obsessed Left had bothered to listen to G.I.s recently returned from Iraq, the vast majority of whom declared we were being far more successful than the countercultural MSM was willing to acknowlege, it'd been aware it was crawling out on a dangerously thin limb with its opposition to combating Islamism.
Is this jerk, Reid, going to be permitted to forget he said "The war's lost," do you think?
Although not a Republican, Yours truly a Viet-Nam veteran, as are all of my fellow veterans with whom
I'm acquainted, is a strong supporter of the military campaigns in Iraq & in Afghanistan.
Most of the opposition to the military campaigns comes from weak sisters who never have nor ever will carry a rifle on the field of battle.
You forgot to add the page scandle. Scandle doesn't effect democrats, but a Republican scandle will result with Republicans voting out thier own.
I find it amazing to read a posting by a person who seems to feel dropping bombs on people is great whereas printing the word "fuck" is evil incarnate. Just amazing. I suppose it's because they think people are not real, at least not Iraqi people, but words are. Curiously, Rumsfeld thought the Constitution was merely words on paper with no real power. What kind of mind thinks a word describing the act of making life is evil but the act of taking life is good? I have to say it's a psychotic mind, like the one in the White House. Not the moron choking on pork rinds, I mean the guy who would shoot an old man in the face and then make him apologize on national TV for upsetting the shooter's family. This is a very strange world we live in, it seems.
Clusterfuck? Do you have editors? Maybe Nancy can come and work for you.
Fred: I'm not clear on how "fucking" is the act of creating life for the political left. It seems rather something to be engaged in with anyone and for any purpose other than that of creating of life, and when life gets accidently created, it's a problem that must be corrected by a "chosen" medical procedure. Granted, that's just a stereotype, but one promoted mostly by those being stereotyped. The rest of us usually create life by "making love" and are happy to keep the results.
Sorry, that's totally off topic. Continue to discuss amongst yourselves. . .
What Nancy, et al fail to verbalize is that they knew all along that 2006 was not a mandate for defeat and retreat. If it was, the repubs. still left would have been scrambling to join with the dems in ending the war. nancy et al couldn't publicly state this obvious fact b/c they needed to keep up the charade for fund raising purposes. And as for nancy's snippy comments re republs liking the war then I guess dems like aborting unborn babies.
I read with some chagrin the writer's attempt to place the fault for the Democrat's failure in the past session of
Congress at the feet of President Bush and the Republican legislators. The Democrats came into power in 2006 promising change in how business was done and results. They failed to deliver on almost all counts. Now, rather than accepting responsibility, they seek to "finger point" their way of of it. This shows more than anything why members of the current Democratic Party are unfit to lead this nation either in Congress or the White House. Real leaders accept responsibility, take correction action when necessary, and deliver positive results. President Bush, despite his mistakes, has delivered on his watch. I cannot say the same for the Democrats.
Poor Nancy,
Now she wants us to believe she is the victim of those republicans who
wont see the world like she does. And for her tortured argument that
it isnt just Bushes war but the republicans also, well what about all her
democratic chumps that voted to go in the first place. Oh I know, they
were victims also of of god knows what.
"Clusterfuck" was used in its proper context by Clint Eastwood in "Heartbreak Ridge". But when a supposedly serious political writer uses it to conjur up an image of mindless confusion in a legislative process, it becomes pathetic. That, and the other obscenities, do nothing but expose an inability to command the English language, coupled with a limited writing technique.
It's a shame, too, because he had a pretty good article going there for a while - a little verbose, but interesting. Suddenly, I felt I was back in high school, with the immature vocabulary of teenagers.
Keep at it, Mr. Lehmann, and the next time you need an expressive word, don't reach beneath you for it.
BUSH - IRAQ WAR FAUCETS
The American Neo-Con Republican president, George Bush, got elected on his solemn promise that there would be “no nation building”; then, on the pretense of a nuclear threat, he illegally turned on two faucets: out of one flows the American People’s precious wealth, and out of the other faucet flows their priceless blood, to the sole benefit of Israel.
This treasonous betrayal of the trust of the American People is a black mark on his name, which can never be erased, will damn him forever in history.
Google: “Mearsheimer Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”; and, “Human Events Ron Paul Interview”