It’s tough to get 218 votes for Iraq supplemental bill, so Speaker gets tough, too

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: The Hill

It’s tough to get 218 votes, so Speaker gets tough, too
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
March 21, 2007

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is holding the implied threat of lost committee seats over the heads of Democratic Caucus members who may vote against her $124 billion Iraq war supplemental bill.

Faced with the possibility of losing the first really big vote since taking majority control in the November elections, Pelosi is talking tough to wavering lawmakers and isolating those opposed to the bill.

Democrats picked up some undecided lawmakers yesterday as they edged closer to the 218 votes they need to pass the bill when it reaches the House floor tomorrow or Friday. Pelosi is spending 90 percent of her time trying to sway the 10 percent of the caucus that is either undecided or opposed to the bill, according to a senior lawmaker and a leadership aide.

She has been hardest on members of the Appropriations Committee and her fellow Californians who oppose the measure. The Speaker pointedly reminded Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a leading opponent of the bill, that she had appointed her to the Appropriations Committee, three Democratic lawmakers said....

***

“I would have written a different bill and not spent money, but this is a step on the path to bringing our troops home,” (Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D., IL) told reporters. “It’s my desire to view this as a partial victory … this vote is the beginning of the end of the war in Iraq.”...

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/its-tough-to-get-218-votes-so-speaker-gets-tough-too-2007-03-20.html

[Double T]

1. Nancy, get tough and stay tough to get things done!!

It is time for some of the Democrats to stop shooting their own party in the foot by crippling the Dems legislation. Sometimes you have to go around the mountain to get over it.

[gulfcoastliberal]

2. Anyone know how Rahm and Hoyer stand?

Wondering if DLC politics are hamstringing Nancy?

[Robbien]

3. Rahm Emanuel is pushing the bill real hard playing an awful Tom Delay

"if you vote against the bill you are voting for GOPers" says Rahm.

bah

This is the first time I am so very disappointed in Jan Schakowsky. The DLC/Rahm is using Schakowsky's capitulation in all their PR and arm twisting now.

She will definately get more than an earful at our next meet and greet.

[Frances]

4. I strongly disagree with your position

If Pelosi loses this vote, then the Dems may very well lose the House in 2008. Polls show that the people want something--anything--done about Iraq. We can either get this far or we will get nothing. Then the Repubs will be in control again.

[Zachstar]

5. I really hope it loses.

Dems need to stop the war NOW and not fund it any longer.

I am highly disgusted with nancy and these bill supporters who only clamor for it because its some kind of dem bit. What traitors this new majority has turned out to be.

Honestly it almost makes me want to vote republican again just to say F* you back at these weak dems.

Thank god I'm a libertarian.

[Frances]

12. I guess you don't understand that no bill passes

unless there are the votes to pass it. This is the strongest bill that has any chance whatsoever of passing.

[Robbien]

6. No, this is not a Pelosi bill. It is a Blue Dog Bill which is Pro War

What's wrong with the supplemental? The deadline for removal is not until August 31, 2008. And, even then loopholes will allow as many troops as President Bush wants to stay in Iraq to "capture or kill" Al Qaeda or other terrorists and to train Iraqi soldiers. These are loopholes big enough to drive a war through! The requirements for sending combat ready troops can be waived by the president so exhausted troops that are inadequately trained can be sent into this quagmire. And, the supplemental does not restrict the president regarding using the funds to attack Iran.
Kevin Zeese
Executive Director
Democracy Rising US

This bill is a Blue Dog/GOP prowar wet dream.

Your fears of losing the house if this bill doesn't pass makes no sense unless you are under the misbelief that Blue Dog Dems warmongers are the only way into the future. War, more War and War Forevermore! appears to be the Blue Dog motto.

[bigtree]

15. It's Obey's bill who is ANTI-war

[robcon]

7. This is regrettable.

If Pelosi threatened people with committee changes, she'll have to do it, whether the bill passes or not, if the member doesn't vote for the bill. Otherwise she'll lose credibility.

This bill is not worth the effort she is putting into it.

[Toucano]

8. I don't love the bill, but I think she has to pull out all the stops

to win.

Winning is more important now than ever, and the Democratic caucus needs to understand that.

Do you think any would switch parties if their seats on the committee are taken away?

[ProudDad]

9. I just want her to MAKE SURE

that there's something in the bill that will make bush veto it!!!

It's too bad she chickened out and pulled the Iran provision...

We WANT bush to veto this one and the next one (a stronger one) and the next one (an even stronger one with say, Barbara Lee's Amendment ), etc.

[EFerrari]

13. Exactly. Make him own this disaster and these crimes. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

10. Who's the House Whip?

In times like these, a good Whip can make the difference.

They're usually the most informed when it comes to how members will likely vote.

[EFerrari]

11. Nancy, do you remember who YOUR base is?

Beating up on Barbara Lee is unconscionable.

[bigtree]

14. Kaplan's a liar, so, how much of this can be believed?

Who is Jonathan Kaplan?

On August 21, The Democratic Daily weblog noted that after a conference call with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Pennsylvania Democratic congressional candidate Patrick Murphy, a reporter, who, according to The Democratic Daily blog, was later confirmed by his Hill editor to be Jonathan E. Kaplan, commented on an argument Kerry had made by saying: "Screw that and screw him."

During the call with Kerry and Murphy, Kaplan asked Murphy whether Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont's primary victory over Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, in a campaign in which Lamont contrasted his support for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq with Lieberman's opposition, "hurts or helps your chances of defeating the GOP incumbent." Kaplan's question echoed the Republican strategy -- explicitly laid out by White House senior adviser Karl Rove earlier this year -- to stress the Republican's purported strength and the Democrats' purported weakness on national security. Kerry objected, noting that it is the responsibility of the media to "not allow them to be able to try to transform failure into an offensive policy to suggest that someone else is weak because they have an alternative that works." Kaplan responded, asking: "Isn't that your job, not ours?" Kerry said: "We're -- we communicate through you. And we need to invite you to be holding them accountable. ... We speak, but if it doesn't get out there, the American people don't hear it."

After Kerry and Murphy left the call, Kaplan attacked Kerry "for blaming the media for how he can't communicate with the American people." When another participant in the conference call noted that "the media does not put the Kerry message out," Kaplan responded: "Screw that and screw him. For him to criticize us? It's his own fault." When then asked to identify himself, Kaplan refused, saying: "Actually, I shouldn't have even said that because I'm gonna get in trouble now." Audio and transcripts of the conference call are available at The Democratic Daily blog.

Kaplan has a history at The Hill of repeating unchallenged partisan attacks on Kerry. He devoted the entirety of a July 7, 2004, article to simply reprinting Republican attacks on Kerry and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) following the announcement that Edwards would be Kerry's running mate.

more: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608230008