GOP fears Pelosi power grab on Iraq

[babylonsister]

GOP fears Pelosi power grab on Iraq
By MARTIN KADY II | 4/29/08 4:48 AM EST



Republicans are howling over what appears to be Nancy Pelosi’s plan to bypass the House Appropriations Committee on the upcoming Iraq war supplemental, complaining that the move will be the beginning of the end of the usual appropriations process and will further consolidate power in the hands of a speaker who already has a lot of it.

Democrats will meet throughout the week to hash out their strategy, and they insist that Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have not yet made any final decisions about how to handle what’s likely to be the last Iraq funding debate of the Bush presidency. But Republican and Democratic appropriations staffers say Pelosi’s office is seriously considering skipping over their committee to take a $178 billion war funding bill — $70 billion more than the president wants — straight to the House floor.

Although it wouldn’t be the first time Pelosi bypassed one of the most powerful Democratic chairmen in her caucus — last year, the speaker circumvented Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) by creating a special global warming subcommittee outside the authority of his committee — sources say Pelosi won’t bypass the Appropriations Committee unless she has the blessing of its chairman, Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.).

Neither Pelosi’s office nor Obey’s would comment on the plan Monday.

more...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9938.html

[CoffeeCat]

1. Look for Pelosi...

...to perform some very public moves that will be courageous and very popular
with her fellow Democrats.

Obama will be asking her to be his running mate.

[babylonsister]

5. Wow, ya think? That thought never even occurred to me. nt

[CoffeeCat]

7. I really think so...

I sensed during her Larry King interview, that she knows something that we don't.

She's so adamant that there won't be a dream ticket. I think there's something
behind that that goes beyond what she's saying.

I also think it would be a smart move. She's highly qualified, with a prestigious
title and obvious experience. In many ways, she neutralizes the sting from not
selecting Clinton. Obama would demonstrate that he is willing to select a woman--but
that Clinton wasn't the right person.

I also think Clinton's murky and undefined "35 years of experience" pales in comparison to Pelosi's
obvious stature and real experience as leading the Senate. The choice would seem very
reasonable and wise.

I really think it's going to happen.

[LanternWaste]

18. it sounds both plausible and do-able.

I hadn't looked at it this way, but all other things being equal-- it sounds both plausible and do-able. A ticket I'd vote for in a heartbeat (and this coming from a Clinton supporter!)

[arendt]

8. Must.not.puke...

The woman has single-handedly held back Conyers and the entire impeachment crowd.

And now, you say, she wants to be REWARDED for this.

You can't be serious.

arendt

[CoffeeCat]

9. I'm not saying I agree with it...

I'm saying--at best--that politically--it could be a very good move.

I don't agree with a lot of what Pelosi has done during her service as Speaker.

Also---I think holding back on impeachment could be construed as a very political
move. Possibly she did it to keep her powder dry and to avoid being painted as
an extremist. I agree that impeachment should have happened. However, the average
person does not see it that way and the Republicans would have positioned any such
move as political and vindictive. Again, I wouldn't agree with that, but from a
political point of view--when you go after impeachment without the votes--you fail
and you also get painted as reckless.

I just sense that this is going to happen. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not saying I agree with it either--I'm just saying!

[arendt]

10. I understand you're "just saying". But, my tolerance for the enabling behavior of Dems...

is at its limit.

This woman must not be rewarded. Why do you think Congressional approval is lower than Bush? Because the Dems have been DOORMATS for the war, for the oil industry, for the banks, for the Bush destruction of the Constitution.

This whole DLC-led attempt at "highway robbery" of Democratic voters who have nowhere else to go is the most rancid betrayal of the middle class I have ever experienced.

arendt

[lonestarnot]

11. Puke fucking puke, how's about you?

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[arendt]

13. I left the room to do that....

now that I've recovered:

:grr: :mad: :nuke: :banghead:

arendt

[lonestarnot]

14. No grace here!

:mad: :patriot:

[DainBramaged]

17. I agree with you, she has done NOTHING to rein in Booshe

and his minions, basically giving them carte blanched (pun intended) and allowing the Repuke agenda to still be in front of the public.

[undeterred]

2. Dave Obey isn't someone you want to piss off

even if you're Nancy Pelosi. :nuke:

[msongs]

3. she has a lot of power? she certainly hasn't done much with yet nt

[bdamomma]

4. or power is clouding her mind and she cannot think properly.

[undeterred]

6. she hasn't done much good with it

[Jim__]

12. What the hell is this about?

...But Republican and Democratic appropriations staffers say Pelosi’s office is seriously considering skipping over their committee to take a $178 billion war funding bill — $70 billion more than the president wants — straight to the House floor.

...

Appropriations aides said the top Democratic committee clerks from the Senate and the House spent the weekend in meetings “pre-conferencing” the bill, meaning the senior staff is greasing the process so the legislation can fly through the House and Senate when leaders decide the timing is right.

Now they're out-bushing bush on Iraq? $70 billion more than he wants?

[tkmorris]

15. My guess is

They are going to strap some pork to the bill, hoping that Bush will feel forced to allow it in order to get his war funding. I guess the message is that the war isn't really a big moral issue for the Dems, just a bargaining chip.

[Jim__]

16. Well, that's better than what I was thinking. Thanks. - n/t

[babylonsister]

21. I just read the Dems want to include educational benefits to

soldiers in this bill; maybe that's where the add'l money is going?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3224184&mesg_id=3224184

[warren pease]

19. So the GOP is scared that, by giving the Bushies about $70 billion more ...

... than their already obscene demands for funding the occupation -- and possibly a few more little border skirmishes and maybe even the random first-strike use of nu-cu-lur weapons for the really hard cases in the Middle East -- the GOP is scared that ... What?

Pelosi will become "the war speaker" and steal the thunder of "the war president?" And because the Iraq occupation is so damned popular, it would be bad for the GOP to give up their leadership in body counts, prosthetic devices for the VA and estimated numbers of maimed Iraqi children?

For the first time in nearly eight years, the democrats will bamboozle the GOP instead of the other way round? And that they'll somehow do this by borrowing even more blood money from the international lending community than the Bushies would have, thereby contributing to rather than railing against GOP print-or-borrow-and-spend economics?

I don't get it. The day the GOP is afraid of Pelosi for any reason at all will be the day I start worrying about the earth getting vaporized by an earth-orbit-crossing asteroid.


wp

[spanone]

20. the thugs are comedians.....suddenly, they want a 'clean bill' only because the dems are in charge

fuck them