WH withdrawing support for Pelosi?

[Peregrine Took]

I heard this on the Bill Press Show today that they were definitely giving the impression they wanted her gone. No more of the "Obama/Pelosi" agenda meme that was so prominent in this election.

Now I see this in a local business paper here in Illinois. Sorry for the long URL - don't know how to shorten them.


http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blogs?blogID=greg-hinz&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3af902290c-fabf-488b-a44f-1c74e72a7fcc&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com

[Hawkeye-X]

1. use bit.ly

or tiny.cc or tinyurl.com

Just cut'n' paste :)

[virtualobserver]

2. Who was the source for that "rumor"...Bill Kristol? Karl Rove?

Sounds ridiculous.

[Peregrine Took]

11. Thanks for the "astute" comments (?) but the speaker was David Jackson -

White House reporter for USA today and a respected newsman with 30 years experience.

[virtualobserver]

17. it is still a ridiculous notion, irregardless of the supposed stature of the reporter

Obama would have to be an idiot to pursue that path....and he isn't an idiot.

[katty]

3. o, did Palin send over a her "cease and desist" on Pelosi?

[msongs]

4. the only effective liberal in DC dems leadership? nt

[Mass]

5. More unsourced rumors. But we are exactly like the GOP, ready to jump on everything we hear.

You're going to find some idiots who are sensitive to what the media say. But Pelosi is in.

[Peregrine Took]

14. Thanks for the insults. Its just something interesting to observe.

Why are you so vicious?

[catgirl]

20. Interesting to observe?

Or lies to spread? You are NOT just observing.

[Mass]

29. The idiots were Democratic congresspeople not wanting Pelosi because she lost, not you.

I should have been more specific, but stop being so sensitive. Nobody is insulting you. It is just frustrating to see people continually attacking other Democrats without the slightest basis for that, except MSM rumors. In addition, I went back to the OP and the article you link does not even have anything to your title.

So, yes, some Democratic Congresspeople will behave like the cowards they are, but the White House is not in cause in anything you linked.

[catgirl]

6. This is spam

Nowhere in this article, does it say the White House isn't supporting Pelosi. It mentions two Illinois reps that aren't supporting her.

You should delete your post. It's spam.

Edited with correction.

[ProSense]

9. The next two years are

going to be non-stop anti-Obama, anti-Democratic GOP psyops.

[Peregrine Took]

10. First of all both are Dems. Second - I never said the article said the WH was

dumping her. I said I heard THAT on the Bill Press show from the White House reporter for USA today. Then when I read that Lipinski and Quigley (chum of Rham) were backing away from her - they aren't doing that on their own. Of course Obama doesn't want to have his fingerprints on this. Sheesh!

[catgirl]

15. You strongly implied it

And you just speculated AGAIN- "Of course Obama doesn't want to have his fingerprints on this. Sheesh!"

A bunch of BS. Not the first post like this. The 'ole "I heard somewhere" BS.

I goofed with the repug thing. You majorly fail with this misleading crap.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[catgirl]

18. THIS is spam

Regardless of what the WH THINKS, you are spreading this BS speculation. And I'm not the one acting "like 12".
Like, OMG!

[ProSense]

19. Speaking of naive

"WH is completely removed from these decisions regarding the future of the Democratic leadership in the next congress? "

What gives you the impression that the President dictates Congressional leadership? Do you think he can simply roll into the House and tell House Democrats that their new leader will be...?

The speculation is without merit. Pelosi has already announced and received tremendous support.




Edited.

[OHdem10]

7. Darn it The DlC CENTRISTS and BLUE DOGS run this party,

and do not ever forget it.

Are you Liberals ready to sit down and shut up and
for goodness do not do one thing to make them
uncomfortable.

[ProSense]

8. Interesting.

The article doesn't mention anything about the WH and Pelosi.

Question: What does the President have to do with selecting the Speaker when the people who matter (Democrats in the House) have already made it known they support her? It's there vote.

The only other person mentioned is Heath Shuler and, by all account, he doesn't have any chance.

The other thing is that, while everyone is trying to help the GOP/MSM spin, Pelosi is now mediating between Hoyer and Clyburn for Minority Whip.

[Peregrine Took]

12. Lets just wait and see how it plays out. I think there is a whole stealth game

going on behind the scenes in terms of Dem leadership and lets not be so naive as to think the "the president" doesn't have an opinion on the matter.

[ProSense]

13. Let's see how it plays out

by posting every damn unsourced rumor and speculation?

[Uzybone]

21. here we go again

I guess this is the rumor 'o' the week

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. "definitely giving the impression"? What does that even mean?

'giving the impression' is something vague. So they're definitely vague. And the impression is up to the interpreter.

A relevant link would help your case. Saying that 1 Chicago Democrat supports Pelosi, and 2 don't, hardly tells us about the White House.

[mkultra]

23. my impression was the Pelosi was not very cooperative with Obama

Especially during the HCR fight.

[onehandle]

24. Doubtful. The most productive Speaker in decades will be the Majority Leader.

Even if I thought this was true (which I don't), I don't think this White House would make a difference.

[Dr. Mullion Blasto]

25. The level of discourse

on this board has certainly degenerated since I used to be a regular reader and participant. What's wrong with posting this piece which seems to be a well-sourced journalistic tidbit, and not that surprising in terms of its content?

Does anyone suppose the WH has no interest in who obtains the leadership positions in the Democratic minority? Just avoiding the thought of something doesn't make it go away. Changing the leadership is an important signal in judging just how the administration is going to play this Congress. Obviously dumping or encouraging the house Democrats to replace Pelosi means they want to move toward the Republican agenda or at least reach some sort of rapprochement. In fact, I'd be rather disappointed in the political acumen of the WH if they did not consider the implications of the leadership choices and attempt to influence them. I don't like this idea much more than most of the people writing on this thread, but just ranting and raving about people posting spam doesn't make it any the less a real possibility.

By the way, I live in Illinois and Quigley is my congressman. He is definitely on the moderate wing of the party and Bill Lipinski is a Blue Dog, so I don't find it especially surprising they would be floating this kind of trial balloon even if there is nobody around who has announced their candidacy other than Schuler.

[ProSense]

26. "What's wrong with posting this piece which seems to be a well-sourced journalistic tidbit"

that has nothing to do with the title of the OP: WH withdrawing support for Pelosi?

You don't see the problem?


"Obviously dumping or encouraging the house Democrats to replace Pelosi means they want to move toward the Republican agenda or at least reach some sort of rapprochement. In fact, I'd be rather disappointed in the political acumen of the WH if they did not consider the implications of the leadership choices and attempt to influence them. I don't like this idea much more than most of the people writing on this thread, but just ranting and raving about people posting spam doesn't make it any the less a real possibility."

Of course you don't see the problem with the OP.

:rofl:

[LiberalFighter]

27. I unrec because the story is nothing more than an attempt by RW to smear Pelosi.

[treestar]

28. Don't the congresspersons choose their leader?

[sabrina 1]

30. Gibbs addressed the issue of Pelosi as minority leader:

Obama backs Pelosi -- sort of

"The White House does not comment or get involved in leadership elections," Gibbs told reporters. "But as the president has said before, he appreciates the work of the speaker and the entire House Democratic leadership team, who have been great partners in moving the country forward. He looks forward to working with them in the years to come."

He is right to stay out of this. The Executive Branch should not interfere in what the House does. So people can make of the Gibbs statement what they will.

Meantime, the Blue Dogs are working to oust her.

[Arkana]

31. The White House can't stick its nose in a leadership battle on the Hill.

It's common sense as well as established procedure.

And anyone in this thread bitching about "THE DEE ELL CEE MAAAAAAANNNNNNNN" does not know anything about politics at all.