Pelosi And Reid's Offices Deny WaPo Story Saying Congressional Dems "Backed Down"

Check this out -- the offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.

Pelosi just went before the Democratic caucus and informed them that the story's false, a Pelosi aide tells me. WaPo is standing by the story, and the lead writer of the Post piece, Jonathan Weisman, told me that leadership aides told him that the withdrawal language had to go. But the WaPo story goes further than that, saying explicitly that Dems have already "backed down" and offered the concession of removing the withdrawal language. Those aren't the same thing.

Why report that Dems have already caved in the negotiations if they haven't yet?

More here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/pelosis_office.php



Does this surprise anyone here? Like the media Washington media wouldn't get this story wrong to help divide the Democratic caucus?

Would you like to explain that flippancy?

The DU circular firing squad gets ridiculous.

more once it shakes out.

The POST is no friend of Democrats these days, that's for sure.

And I'm hoping in the long run Bush's defense of his indefensible war is the victim of public pressure to bring our soldiers back home.

From the looks of things, it doesn't seem like the POST shares that goal.

the details however you please. I can imagine the reporter talked to a dozen aides and finally found one that said something that fit the lede. This is a classic example of how our vaunted "objective" Washington media really does have a bias towards the Republican viewpoint.

As this article points out, the frame is entirely on how the Democrats have internal problems with this veto...yet none want to examine how the Republicans are negatively impacted by this. I wonder why?

I'd like to hold a seance as soon as possible to summon the spirits of Frank Church, Bobby Kennedy, Bella Abzug, and Paul Wellstone.

That's a Front Four I think would hold the line pretty well.

I haven't ruled Reid and Pelosi out -- Nancy Pelosi used to represent me, in fact before I foolishly moved out of her district -- but the long-run loss is Bush's. Democrats gave him more funding than he asked for AND a map to the exit door in Iraq. He turned it down in a political fit.

I think that's going to cost him.

Who else would put that type of spin on it? hmmmm???

And if the leadership tries to back down, they need to be shot down. But it need not come to that.

Dem leadership: this is a barrel -- keep Dubya over it.

Please prove me wrong.

Demoralization is always the best approach to a problem.

As long as you sprinkle it with a dose of reality!

They might not back down but they might have to offer a compromise, and as long as it's not Bush's definition of a compromise, there's hope.

No one knows what the Democratic leadership is planning, but that won't stop the media from putting their own spin on it.

of the Dems if this is the case.

And this will make my belief even stronger that we need to have the Fairness Doctrine updated and made law again, ASAP. The corporate owned news media in this country is playing games with us, and that cannot be tolerated. They must report accurately, reliably, and fairly.

I hope I've been wrong about the Dems, I will gladly accept my error if the story is untrue!

Hey, I don't want to be a pisser here, but I personally don't have much faith in the Dems lately. I'm more optimistic than in the past and things do tend to be changing... some.

That being said, I don't think anyone think's 'ill' of 'us'. I am 'us'. But I ain't 'them'. And 'them', meaning our Democratic politicians, have quite the history of being spineless.

That is why I am here.

And I don't think ill of "us" I am frustrated with our Democratic leadership in Congress for not doing what they know they were put in office to do.

The people made it very apparent in November what we wanted, and it wasn't to appease George Bush.

Period.

If Pelosi or Reid would just say: "Time lines for withdrawal must stay in any funding bill." That would end all the speculation.

But that's not what I'm hearing.

or there will be no funding bill. The chimp has already said numerous times, probably a gazillion by now that he will veto it, and he has, true to his word vetoed it, and his fellow Republicans are going down with his Titanic apparently. Next time, it won't even get out of the House, because they will filibuster it.

The House can't filibuster. It is not in their rules.

Pelosi has the power to decide what will come to the floor of the House. If she decides that no funding bill will come to the floor of the House without time lines, she WILL get her way. If Bush doesn't like it, he must retake the majority in the House, but until he does, Pelosi is in charge.

If Bush doesn't like what Pelosi gives him, that's tough. He will have to cajole or intimidate her into a compromise or take whatever she offers. That's the way our Constitution works. Right now it looks like he will get her to compromise. He wins, Dems lose.

So let him veto all he wants, he can't run this war (occupation) without Pelosi's help. The only question left is how much she will help him.

and she is not "helping" him, otherwise they would have sent him a Bill he could sign. They have to come up with a Bill that the house can pass with enough majority to override any veto, and a Bill that the Senate will not filibuster. Otherwise there is no Bill. Period. If you think that's wise politically, I disagree with you.

Bush is the one that will have to compromise here in order to get a Bill he can sign, if he's smart, which he isn't. In the end, I think the Democrats will probably end up with some semblance of a timeline, although nobody will call it that, just to save the crazy ass m.f.'ers ego. But that's another story.

Bush has already said that he will not compromise and the Dem leadership has already said that they will:

"Democratic leaders have said they plan to drop the withdrawal timelines from the next spending bill, which they hope to send to Bush by the end of the month.

They have indicated, however, that they want to include benchmarks for the Iraqi government to keep pressure on its leaders to take political steps to match the U.S. military effort."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-warfunds3may03,1,1084634.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&vote29474232=1

if they send a bill that can override a veto. I think they can and I think they will. The Repubs will blink this time.

They have Pelosi backing down. Why would they surrender when they are winning?

Where do you get that optimism? Especially in the face of contradictory evidence?

Let them die or bring them home. It's up to the Decider. "Negotiating" anything with Bush is caving.

is at least as strong as the half-loaf previously offered, I will happily withdraw my previous criticisms.

Looking forward to being wrong.

just like we wanted to be wrong about the Surpreme Court, the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, etc.

But we weren't wrong on those...all of those were our worst fears realized. To make matters worse, the left got exactly NO CREDIT for being correct in their fears of Demoicratic capitulation on these issues. Instead, we got further marginalized by our own party.

One thing is predictable...both parties ignore the left no matter how much the left is correct. For once I would like to see the opposite...the left to be wrong about their fears and to be listened to on issues FOR ONCE.

By the way....have you heard? It is the left's fault we have Bush in the first place. :sarcasm:

new party. The Greens are not appropriate, one issue parties are really not relevant, and the only others I know of all suffer from some fatal flaw (like the one that has a name so close to the constitutional party that it will never be a player). If we had a place to go, and did, the Democratic Party would cease to exist altogether.

It would serve them right.

What's changed?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a vibrant multi-party electoral system where we have lots of Party choices...but then you still need to play the coalition game to govern...and that creates lots of problems in governing (see Italy). Within the 2 Party framework, we seem to have subset caucuses that promote specific subset agendas, so I guess I really don't see any great benefits in rearranging the chairs.

The bigger issue to me is, until I see the monolythic Republican Party permanently fragment into a half dozen unaffiliated and competing political organizations, I see no value for us to willingly surrender our political power. It would be social/political/economic suicide.

no political power nor any significant representation, so what would be different? The only purpose we currently serve is to keep the Republik-lite party alive, thus maintaining the illusion of choice. It would be more honest to just let it die and have a real opposition party, even if we lose, at least we would lose fighting for what we know, and history always shows, to be right, instead of some bastardized, useless "compromise" that invariably turns out to be nothing other than capitulation.

The Republiks came to power by doing two things, taking stands and fighting for them, and by catering to their base. The Democrats have, for over 30 years now, steadfastly refused to do either, but instead emulate the Republiks more and more each cycle, trying to convince the mythical "swing voter" that we want whatever it is we think they want, and if not, we'll change our platform to accommodate them.

Maybe it was true through the 90's....but I think it was more rooted in ambivalence and general satisfaction with the direction we were headed. Since the Bush selection, I have sensed a growing progressive influence within the Party. I think the grassroots is driving a demand for a much more liberal Democrat to represent their interests. No big surprise....as the pendulum swings, I expect those gains to grow.

Of course, you can always join Ralph Nader's Republican-financed crusade to nowhere...because, as he so astutely pointed out, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Gore Democrats and Bush Republicans! :rofl:

neglect of the grassroots, just look at the front-runners for the Presidential nomination and their plans for universal health care. Several versions of subsidies for insurance companies with no results until some second term. Doesn't sound very progressive to me.

But thanks for digging out the old "Ralph Nader is evil and is to blame for all our misfortune" canard, after all we have been given the directive that we owe our votes to The Party.

The voters sent a message last year in such numbers that the election fraud was not able to counter it, if we don't deliver the consequences will be our own fault.

for this old chestnut: "The only purpose we currently serve is to keep the Republik-lite party alive, thus maintaining the illusion of choice. " Our old, Republican-funded friend, Ralph Nader couldn't have said it better.

"if we don't deliver the consequences will be our own fault." Well, it won't be your fault. You're ready to start a new Party, remember?

Or are you going to give us one last shot? Perhaps we can convince the DNC to tailor the agenda to fit your needs. Sorta like Burger King...."have it your way"!

aspersions and pointless, unsubstantiated, invective. I'm sure that with such persuasive advocates as yourself, we'll have that super-majority in no time at all.

Of course, since you have no argument, I guess this is the only option you have. "My team, right or wrong", "the republikans are so mean", "we can't possibly win, so it would be foolish to even try". We've heard it all before, and we've seen the results. Your regurgitation of tired old insults that others created only expose your lack of imagination.

So tell me this, when/if HRC gets the nomination and the Republiks nominate an apparent "moderate", like Hagel or Thompson, what will your excuse when the Iraqi butchers bill passes 10,000 Americans and 1,000,000 Iraqis, or for the 7 - 2 reich-wing Supreme Court and the accompanying dismissal of Roe v. Wade, or the entirely privatized government, or your inability to redress corporate crime, be?

Will it be Nader's fault again? What if he doesn't run?

If the party refuses to listen to the left and the country goes to hell, I would think that is the fault of the party. After all, this is a two-party system and both sides are expected to play to win. The left have been ignored since Reagan....coincidentally, that is about the time this country started going to hell. After nearly thirty years of being ignored, I think the left has the right to feel like free-agents.

There is no third party option, but there is the option of taking over the party and making it work for the American people for a change. We aren't going to do that by pledging fealty to the leadership and falling into lockstep. We do it by relentless vigilence and generating consequences for going against the interests of the People in favor of other interests.

"There is no third party option, but there is the option of taking over the party and making it work for the American people for a change." I submit, as much as the Republican corporate media and the Party of Reagan bloviate to the contrary, this country is desperate for Democratic/Progressive leadership on a New Deal scale. That will require a lot of progressives and moderates to form an effective governing coalition. There is no 3rd way to get there.

We have 70 Democrats in the House that are reasonably on-board with such an approach as it stands, now...and as I count, about 15-18 Senators. The center of the party is forced to negotiate with an extremely aggressive right coalition that insists on capitulation at every turn or they vote with the pukes. As that group diminishes (preferably and hopefully by being replaced by a strong, likeable Democrat with a populist bent), the main negotiating power will once again shift to the left on the economic issues and the Democratic message will unify. Only a unified message will be marketable to the American people.

Help me out here....how will you keep everyone happy in your new Party? Will they have to agree with you on all issues? Or will you do any compromising? I'd hate to join your New Party if you start compromising on your beliefs.

Will this be a single issue Party or do you plan to have a comprehensive platform? Single issue (Iraq War!) might be the way to go. You can probably figure the other issues out as you go along.

The campaign cornerstone will be "not Republican and not Democrat". Lets say that's a winner with the voting public in 2008. Now, how do you run the government? Even if you field a full slate of candidates in all 400+ districts, you probably aren't going to be close to getting your majority coalition installed. I guess you'd be primarily looking for Dems to support your agenda. Damn...looks like compromise time again. OK, I'll concede you'd still do a better job than the current Commander Guy.

As far as your tortured hypothetical goes, I have no idea how to respond to it. But, what the heck, I'll throw out a hypothetical response - "it's Clinton's fault!"

I hope it makes you feel better, since it is apparent that you are deeply insecure in your unquestioning support of the despicable behavior of our leadership thus far. I'm sure you would not be nearly so bombastic IRL when faced with a survivor of one of the casualties of the mass-murder you seen so keen on continuing for political expedience.

Since any new parties would not be "mine", as you've tried to frame it, the majority of your non-response is utterly meaningless. Further, since you have chosen to refuse to address even a single issue raised and resisted any attempt at dialog, it is clear you are only interested in shouting down opposition and diverting the conversation that was started with another member, a favored Republik strategy too many Democrats are currently engaging in (out of guilt?).

What we have is simply history repeating itself and when things become worse enough you and your kind will, once again, be relegated to your much deserved irrelevance, then you can slink back to your anonymity and trouble us no more.

I see no pressure on the leadership of the Democratic party to get in touch with the base. Always the first indication in the party is to cut loose the left. The left has had no voice in the party in many, many years. Those members that are left are considered quirky or cute, and never are allowed much of a voice.

This is aided by a media that has both cozied up to the Republicans while blackmailing Democrats and acting as a gatekeeper as to which Democrats can be heard or discussed.

But at the ground level, Old and in the Way is correct. We activists are gaining influence. We are winning the arguments at the water-cooler and the family dinner table and changing the way America thinks. As a result, many of the non-elected Democrats have become far more informed and far less tolerant of capitulation.

But I agree....the Nader strawman is shameless. I find that particular form of Democratic McCarthyism revolting. Anyone that approaches a multivariate problem as a singular issue has a bridge to sell to you.

...a basic principle of our American system is a choice between two competing interests.

Cowboys or Indians?
RCA or Sony?
Coke or Pepsi?
This or that?

Everyone knows this, but when it comes to politics, we have one choice and one loosely-defined amalgam position.

Cowboys or ranchhands?
RCA or RCA knock-off
Coke or Pepsi-flavored Coke

The only way to compete against a monolith like the Republican party is a monolith of our own. Two competing interests. When the argument is pared down to this, I think it will be much easier to approach the body politic.

The Democrats have to get in touch with their base again....for their own survival. That is how I see it...the present strategy is a long, inexorable descent into state collapse. You cannot defeat these people with an ill-defined ideology.

Now it is "Democrat vs. Republican". In the future, I hope it shifts to "progressive Democrat" vs. "moderate Democrat". When the argument becomes shades of policy differences or budgetary allocation....we've made real progress.

That is the real rub.....Republicans never break ranks. They are a freaking juggernaut that seems to get the entire bunch to vote on hard-right policy. Moderates do not exist on the Republican side in truth.

How does one counter that?

1. Wedging the Republicans has proven to be near-impossible. Even on clearly criminal actions, moderates Republicans talk tough and then capitulate to their hard-right leadership. Political consequences do not seem to rise to the level of the consequences of crossing the Republican leadership. If they have that power by hook (rhetoric), then fine, but if they have it by crook (by say, illegal wiretapping, blackmail, etc.), we need to dismantle whatever loyalty system they have built through investigation.

2. Electing the Republicans out of office has yielded excellent potential results, but our acquisition of the majority is still hindered greatly by our diversity of opinion. We have Democrats who vote with the hard-right most of the time....a very uncomfortable fact. Our leadership is incapable of commanding the loyalty that the Republicans have garnered from their membership.

I see the strategy as two-pronged. First, utilize the primary system to unify the Democratic voices, thus increasing the voting power of the party on the Hill. That can only be done by cutting loose the fringe elements of the party without dissolving the base. In other words....corporate/conservative Dems must go and be replaced by a new breed of Dems palatable to the rural areas but still out for the interests of the American people. Populists fit the bill nicely because they can be relied upon to vote for the American People when it comes to bread and butter issues. They are not as loyal on social issues, but then again, I welcome a Populist's approach to social issues versus a Republican. It is by negotiating with Populists, and not Republicans or conservative Democrats, that a better consensus on social issues can be reached.

The next part of the strategy is to absolutely savage the Republicans. I mean bloody their nose and make them rue the day they put an R by their name. That means full attack mode....and using the facts. It is imperative that all Democrats, high and low, become fiercely informed. No more being nice...no more Queensbury rules, no more wondering how we look. We expose the Republicans for each and every crime, and if Democrats are caught up in it then they are jettisoned, as well. We should purge the corruption right out of our government and make a big freaking show of it, as well. The truth is...Americans do not vote for hedgers and the risk-averse. They vote for winners and losers who were willing to take chances and make a big fuss.....we are AMERICANS, not wimps.

If these two methods are employed equally, I can foresee this country getting on track in 10 years, starting with a reformation of our broadcast AND cable news media by 2008. I do not see that happening sooner under the banner of any Third Party at this time. I also do not see that happening under the strategy currently being employed by the elected Democrats. There is a terrible disconnect between the activist base and nearly the entire field of representatives. One side is screaming at the top of their lungs trying to be heard and the other is trying their damnest not to listen.

I think we are already beginning to the see results of change in the 110th and they are encouraging. The discipline to vote Party line is something we haven't seen with such consistency since, what, the 70's? I think we've rediscovered how to play the game. I also think a big part of this effectiveness is attributable to the impact of the internet (thanks Al Gore!) as a primary informational/organizing tool for Democrats. We lost the mass media a long time ago. Rank-and-file Democrats were virtually cut off from their leadership. Worse, the Republican media lense both controlled and distorted the message and the 2-way communication. We've seen a fundamental shift in information/communication technologies since 2000 and they have dramatically helped Democrats to both identify and drive a common agenda while exposing the corrupt/criminal Republicans and their Party as a vehicle for self-serving special interests.

We have a long way to go, but, as we grab back more political power, our successes in delivering a middle-class agenda will be reaffirming...the more we deliver, the more the Democratic brand will be re-bought every 4 years. Yes, we have warts...but I see 2 critical differences in our Democratic politics going forward-

(1) We will be able to counter the negative and largely unfounded attacks that Republicans pounded Clinton with in the 90s. Bill was boxed in by an 8 year Inquisition that kept Democrats on the defensive. The internet dynamics today guarantees that this will not happen again.

(2) The same internet is the domain of the progressive end of the Democratic Party and I have no doubts that the heat will be applied to those Democrats who won't or can't support a progressive and enlightened agenda. If the Party thinks they win in '08 and everyone goes home....they are in for a very rude awakening...

That is for sure. I owe my limited knowledge of politics largely to the internet as do millions of others. We have a buffer from a compliant media, but that precious buffer is also under attack, as well. It amazes me how persistent and widespread the Republican attack machine is. Their infrastructure must be dismantled systematically by smart legislation immediately. The good thing is...the slashdot nerds (no offense slashdot) are on our side in this matter and finally a few on the Hill have been made aware of the indispensibility of the internet in party communication. We won;t lose it due to ignorance any more.

Provided we can weather the assaults on the internet as a politcal medium, I suspect that the online activists will creep much further up the party structure by 2010 (off-year elections are good times for these sea-changes like 2006). That is good news.

But you are right...we have a long way to go. At least we have a dang good shot of eliminating Leiberman as a blackmailer in 2008 (and perhaps Landrieu and Nelson) as well as capturing the executive branch provided the American people do not cancel their compact with the party. I think that fearlessly and tirelessly showing the Republicans that we mean business is exactly the recipe for ensuring that does not happen.

Wait...what happened???

well...we got a few reforms. A couple of bones thrown to us. A couple of bucks in the minimum wage over the next few years. A little help on student loans. Band-aids on a festering, bleeding wound.

Not enough......not nearly enough. And I am prepared to let our reps know every single minute of every single day that it is not enough. I am not a sycophant or a partisan operative who inherently trusts a power structure because it exists. I love my party enough to tell it that it is not acting in the interests of the American people.

I vowed a long time ago to elect nothing but Democrats, but be sure to hold their feet to the fire because I am not into politics for Democrats. I am in it for my mother, and my dad, and my wife, and the neighbor, and the neighbor's kids, etc. etc. etc. The only reason I like the Democrats is because they are the only game in town if you are not a fascist.....not a shining testimonial. If the Republicans could be beaten and America set to right by the Fuzzy Kitty party...that would be my choice.

was told that they didn't have a comment on that (the WaPo story) yet. I wasn't encouraged by that, I was hoping for an indignant "NO! Of course it's not true!!!"

Please call Congress today. Talk to them, they NEED to hear from you on this matter.

Toll-free numbers here: (and please kick that thread for visibility)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=812154&mesg_id=812154

That's all. Just ignore it and walk away.

And yes, the NonGenius put it out there, likely.

the fact that the timeline was NON-BINDING????

Bush vetoes a bill that places NO restrictions on him whatsoever and the Democrats don't even point that out to the largely un-informed public!!! Sounds wimpy to me!

:grr:

By blasting the airwaves, do you mean advertising time to tell the truth? My guess is that no one in the broadcast media wanted to nip this lede...better to have the Democrats start devouring each other.

in front of the cameras together yesterday to point out that BUSH DENIED THE FUNDS FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER.

I thought the reason the timeline was made non-binding in the first place was to create this situation when he vetoed the bill, i.e. "There is NO reason to veto a suggestion . . . " and, apparently, that wasn't the case. So now I'm scared that there was no plan, or the plan changed or . . . .

I'm trying to be supportive and not be too much of an "extreme Leftie" but this sort of thing scares me.

With all the problems we have right now, why waste precious time on non-binding stuff?

Make it binding. Be firm. Believe in it. Stick with it. Do not back down.

Smack Chimpy to the ground where he belongs.

Bush and Co. have pissed on the American people long enough. It's time for them to start swallowing what they've been expelling!

My point is this: If they put binding, enforceable "benchmarks" in the next bill that they send over and somehow using the phrase "benchmarks" let's the WH keep face just enough to sign the damn bill then that will be fine with me.

I expect that the Dem leadership will change the phrasing they use to describe the bill to make it more palatable to Republicans in Congress who might provide a veto-proof majority and/or to make it more palatable to the WH.

I would find it terribly unfortunate if we attack Pelosi and Reid if they are able keep the core of the bill intact and change some of the window dressing -- and that seems, to me, to be what some people have been doing when claiming that the Dems have caved.

the next time they'll call it something else just to save monkey asses ego, but in the end, they'll get some semblance of a timeline. The Repubs will claim a victory, but it will be a very empty one. They're imploding as we speak.

do the same thing on the next one with the same timeline. Every 3-4 months from now through the March deadline....then start impeachment.

Sucks to have a sociopath with an entitlement ego running the show.

Are Pelosi and Reid playing fast and loose with the truth? Sure, they may truthfully deny "deleting the language", but are they crafting or otherwise planning to introduce a new bill not containing the language, thus giving * whatever he wants?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

It went something like "We made our point, and now its our responsibility to pass something that can get the pResident's signature."

That is complete bullshit. What about his responsibility to sign something that funds the troops. This is WEAK thinking. W-e-a-k. Bush must be laughing. If this is Pelosi's real thought process we are screwed.

Have another vote with the same or stronger language in it. Otherwise, it's just more caving to the Chimp.

Be polite, of course. You may use the term "misleading", if you wish, or you could plain call him a liar.
From Weisman we now know that Pelosi's anonymous aide told him that the timetable language "has to go". This is not the same as saying that an offer has been put on the table by Democrats excluding the timetable portion of the previous bill.
This is Weisman contact info:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jonathan+weisman/

are suckers.

Their track record over the past 10 years or so couldn't be clearer....

I expect good things like that from them.