WAPO: Pelosi Loses Her Spot at the Helm

[polichick]

By Dana Milbank

Nancy Pelosi was aggrieved.

President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner cut her out of talks aimed at averting a government shutdown. When they struck a deal, she was more than 400 miles away, giving a speech in Massachusetts.

On Thursday morning, when the Associated Press’s Andy Taylor asked Pelosi how she would vote on the compromise, she was still fuming. “As was pretty evident, the House Democrats were not a part of that agreement,” she said, disputing the very term “deal.” “I’d rather call it an agreement than a deal,” she went on, adding, “I feel no ownership of that or any responsibility to it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper/A%20Section/2011-04-17/A/19/18.0.2459748464_epaper.html


As a true blue liberal, it's disturbing how little pull the left wing of the party has these days - especially after the vote on the "People's Budget."

[Peregrine Took]

1. Next time before we fall in "love" with a candidate we have to know a lot

more about him or her.

And for us to be able to do that there must be an extensive history out there to investigate.

Not just editor of this, adjunct professor there, worked here, is a good speaker, has a nice family, etc.

No more stealth candidates for me.

[polichick]

6. At the very least, progressive groups need a response plan for the kind of bait-and-switch...

...the prez has engaged in.

[DURHAM D]

37. Some of us did know a lot more...

[PurityOfEssence]

49. Yes, and we caught holy hell for it, too.

Now, the justification for the warmongering and corporatist appeasement is that he had clearly taken these positions long ago. Yes, in truth, he had, along with the diametrically opposed ones that suckered so many on the left. Not only was there ample evidence of this at the time, the overall tactic of being on all sides of all things was quite apparent, yet the corporatist voting record was clear.

Never has so much "potential" been used as "proof", and the silliness never ends: he got a Peace Prize for the assumptions of what he'd do, and he started a war based on the claims of what someone else would.

Here we are: stuck. Yay.

[Cal33]

38. The first thing Pelosi did as Mme. Speaker in Jan. 2007 was to put impeachment off the table.

Later followed other similar actions. Obama is not the only appeaser around.

[vaberella]

47. What did Obama do wrong here?! Because you're suggesting he did something wrong.

Then do you believe that Senate Minority leader McConnell should be included in the meeting when his vote is pointless? Do you think Obama did wrong in hot having McConnell there too?

[Armstead]

53. Yes. McConnell and Pelosi are both leaders of their parties in their chamber of Congress

I don't like Mitchie, but it is possible he felt that Boner could represent Senate Repubs. However he should at least been invited to the table.

In any case, it seems as though Pelosi feels shut out, which should not have happened....I guess those pesky Liberals were not welcomed.

[sudopod]

58. Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi is just another crazy extremist, amirite? nt

[Ikonoklast]

2. Maybe she should have stayed in DC?

Looks like more political plausible deniability from Pelosi more than anything.

This is how the game gets played...the Republicans can't use the "San Francisco Liberal Pelosi Agenda" as a foil on this deal.

[wellst0nev0ter]

3. To Be Fair, I Wasn't Exactly In "Love" With Him

But even I am saddened by this. Does he even remember which party he belongs to anymore? That was very unwise of him.

[polichick]

5. I wasn't in love with him either - he and Clinton are both very corporate - but...

...he doesn't seem to care which party he belongs to.

[vaberella]

4. I love Pelosi...but seriously. She knows how things work in Washington.

Cancel your extra money shit to get things done. Because as my dad says..."Time waits for no man (or woman in this case)."

[wellst0nev0ter]

29. I Think The Issue Is That They Kept Her Out Of The Loop

well, one could argue that she should have spent he time in Washington trying to sniff out when secret deals are being made behind her back, but that just accentuates the problem Obama has with his own party.

[vaberella]

42. Uh she's in the minority party. She held no power in the vote. What would she bring to the table?

What does she have to negotiate and bargain with? Absolutely nothing. So her presence there is not necessary. This happened to Boehner countless times---when looking at the Iraq issue when Bush was in Power and 2 years before the House turned Repub. But no one on DU cared if Boehner was excluded from meetings. Why is it mandatory that the Dem minority leader be at this meeting? And I highly doubt that she was not aware of the meeting.

[wellst0nev0ter]

50. I See You've Fully Bought Into The One-Party Rule Doctrine

Mazel tov.


And you seriously need to check your timeline. The Republicans were not in the minority in the House at that time. Boner wasn't the majority leader or minority leader until 2006.

[vaberella]

51. Ugh...

Yes I know. When I said 2 years I was speaking from 2010. Which means 2008. And Boehner was a Republican minority leader.

[Me.]

7. So He Has No Use For Pelosi Huh

Well Obama seems to have a problem sticking by the people who stuck with him

[polichick]

10. Yet, he's sure we'll all be there for him in 2012 - what a sick system.

[Me.]

30. Well they All Count On "Where Else Are They Going To Go"?

And what is it Chicago pols, now Durbin is part of the new gang of 6?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[NYC Liberal]

8. It's interesting how Pelosi used to be viciously attacked here at DU.

There were demands that she be primaried, replaced as Speaker, etc.

[polichick]

9. Sure, by the same folks who think "New Dems" are peachy keen.

[NYC Liberal]

11. No. By people who said she WAS a corporatist "New Dem"

and wanted her replaced by Cindy Sheehan.

[polichick]

13. If Pelosi is a New Dem, Obama is a true red Republican.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

17. You missed the meaning of my post - think again.

[NYC Liberal]

25. I didn't say it, other people did. Many of them wanted her replaced

with Cindy Sheehan.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

14. yep. That was because she supports Obama.

[NYC Liberal]

22. No, it was in part because she took impeachment "off the table" nt

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JTFrog]

36. Yea, the same folks that said we should get rid of Pelosi and Reid and just keep Dean. n/t

[OhioBlue]

55. absolutely not - it was the people that wanted her

to be replaced b/c she didn't impeach Bush. they didn't think "New Dems" were peachy keen. you are re-writing history with that.

[treestar]

34. She was called spineless, weak

she was Obama then!

[vaberella]

40. I love her, always had. I used to stand up for her here.

I have to say though, I noticed the difference on this board lately.

[NYC Liberal]

41. Me too. I still like her a lot and hopefully she will be

Speaker again in 2013.

[vaberella]

46. I hope so as well. But this sort of thread is pointless--because she's not necessary.

This article reads like more of an Obama hit piece.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

12. the Dems have no bargaining power in the House. Nancy couldn't have done anything.

[polichick]

15. The president could have included her - if nothing else it would've helped...

...him negotiate from a better place. imo he should have included her because both he and she are Democrats.

[JoePhilly]

61. Should have also included with the Senat's minority leader?

[Donnachaidh]

35. Yeah, Nancy pushing all those *historic* reforms through in the first year

counts for nothing now.

Guess it's back to the SOP ball-scratching misogynistic viewpoint in Washington now that Pelosi is no longer *useful* to TPTB...

[DCBob]

19. Unfortunately the RW attack machine has worked on Pelosi.

I dont know why but they just love to go after her. Maybe its because she is a strong woman and says exactly what she thinks and does not back down. But the bottom line is that they have made her name and face toxic poltically.

[polichick]

21. I don't blame them - when they demonize ("liberal" "Pelosi" etc.), it's up to use to...

...stand firm. The prez doesn't get that - he abandons those demonized by the other side (his minister, Van Jones), presumably because he dislikes conflict and likes protecting his own ass.

[DCBob]

26. That approach, although noble, doesnt work.

This is big league politics. There have been many casulties.. some you probably agreed with... eg Rhambo.

[polichick]

27. Sorry, I don't agree that we should ever accept their framing of things...

I'm a true blue LIBERAL and proud of it.

[flpoljunkie]

20. Ignore Milbank. Pelosi was praised for the Dems voting in lockstep against the Ryan budget

Milbank is a snarky jerk, trying to make waves and get on the cable shows.

[thelordofhell]

23. Milbank is a tool

I can't believe there are people here on DU taking this "article" seriously.

[polichick]

24. Like him or not, it's true that Pelosi was not included. That sucks.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Unvanguard]

28. The House Democrats are not a veto point. They're not needed to pass a budget.

That's just how politics works.

I mean, was Mitch McConnell invited?

[geek tragedy]

31. This is life as the minority party in the House.

Irrelevance. The only option is to create noise and embarrassment for the majority party.

[ProSense]

33. Dana Milbank is an idiot!

He's twisting the intent of Pelosi's comments, which were clearly aimed at countering Republicans.

Pelosi Suggests Dems Won't Let Government Shutdown If Republicans Abandon Boehner

Pelosi Statement on President Obama’s Speech on the Federal Budget

Transcript of Pelosi, Van Hollen Press Conference Today

Leader Pelosi. Good morning. Good morning, again. I'm pleased to be here with our distinguished ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. That is the subject of the day, week, hour, year. It is a valid statement of our national values, and we are very proud of the work of our House Democrats on the Budget Committee.

Yesterday, President Obama promoted a strong vision for America's future, a clear statement of our principles, and a vision and a plan. He made it clear that we have a responsibility to create jobs, to educate our children, to protect the health of our seniors, to strengthen or middle class as we focus on reducing the deficit. His plan is one about shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, with each of us contributing to the future prosperity of our great country.

Today marks the 100th anniversary, the 100th day, of the Republicans having the majority in the House of Representatives. In the past 100 days, the Republicans have created no jobs and do not have a jobs agenda. They are voting to end Medicare as we know it, and while they give big subsidies to Big Oil they have voted to deny patient's bill of rights. They have voted to deny women's health issues. That is the record of the first 100 days.

Democrats will move forward to create jobs, to strengthen the middle class, grow the economy, and to do this in a way that reduces the deficit.

The GOP budget, as you know, it ends Medicare while giving tax subsidies to Big Oil. It block grants Medicaid, throwing many seniors out of nursing homes, while it gives tax breaks to companies sending jobs overseas. It cuts education and increases the cost of college for many young adults, while it continues to give tax cuts to the rich. It is unfair.

We will judge every measure that comes before us as to whether it creates jobs, reduces the deficit, strengthens the middle class, or grows the economy. That is exactly what our Democratic budget does.

And I'm pleased to yield the floor to the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee Mr. Van Hollen.


<...>

Q: Madam Leader, before you turn to the budget, there is the question of where you are, wrapping up this year's spending. How are you going to vote? And if you are going to oppose it, why are you going against a deal that President Obama and the Democratic leaders of the Senate worked out?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I haven't made any statement as to how I would vote, but it was pretty evident that the House Democrats were not any part of that agreement. I would rather call it an agreement rather than a deal. It was self evident that the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate were the two majorities. They were the ones who had the vote, so they had the strength to negotiate, and the President presided over that. I feel no ownership of that or any responsibility to it, except that we don't want to shut down government.

Q: So how are you going to vote?

Leader Pelosi. I will be consulting with my Ranking Members to see what impact it has on our homeland security, consumer protections…Every domestic initiative in the bill has had a cut from 2010. The defense has had an increase, and tax cuts for the rich are still thriving and well in all of the stuff that is going on here. There is no change in that. So I will have to make an evaluation.

Q: Some of the liberal members of your caucus think the President gave away too much in this deal. Do you share that sentiment?

Leader Pelosi. I'm studying it, and I will make an evaluation as I vote in consultation with my Members. You have to remember that we didn't see this until Monday night or Tuesday morning. It was—some of the particulars within subcommittee jurisdiction were not determined until the beginning of this week. So we are making evaluation about it. But it was very important to keep government open. We all support that.

Q: Madam Leader, do you get a sense that there is a very wide swath of your caucus that will vote against this?

Leader Pelosi. I don't have any idea.

Q: And do you think that part of that, do you think, how many, a third?

Leader Pelosi. We have not whipped it. We have not encouraged one way or another. People are just making their own judgments about it, because you are talking about subjects that people know a great deal about, but they all do want to keep government open. So that will be part of the equities that will be weighed as we make a determination.

Q: And to follow up, do you think some who do vote no, have they told you that are doing so because of their displeasure with the President; they felt they were sold down the river in the tax deal in the fall?

Leader Pelosi. No, I haven't heard that at all. It is about the particulars of the bill that is before them. They will make a judgment about what they believe, and that is how they will vote.

Q: When were you Speaker and you brought bills to the floor, typically you had 218 of your Members to bring it across the finish line. Speaker Boehner has relied on the Democrats in the PATRIOT Act, on previous CRs. Could you reflect on that a little bit? What does that mean about his leadership and his caucus, having been in that position before?

Leader Pelosi. Every caucus is different. He has many new members, and as you indicated, we had to keep government open with, 84 Democrats, I think, voted for that first continuing resolution, while 54 Republicans voted against it. But you're just going to have to talk to him about the dynamic within his caucus.

What we did—I can speak to what we did—we came to the floor when we had consensus. There was a lot of collaborative working together, whether it was regional disparities, whether it was philosophical differences, whether it was generational, ethnic, you name it, every difference, because we have a very diverse caucus. I call it the giant kaleidoscope.

You have to make sure that the design has 218. That affects certain people one time and other people another time. But we always put the bill together together, and that's what we did. You'd have to talk to him about his dynamics.

Q: Madam Leader, if the Speaker loses support because of these recent CBO numbers, and it appears that the bill might not have enough votes to make it over the threshold, will you assure that there are enough Democrats to make it pass?

Leader Pelosi. Well, you know, again, we have our own collaboration in our caucus and respect each other's thinking that will take us to a place when the vote comes to the floor. And so we will see, but it was as is clearly evident, the Speaker spoke for the House of Representatives in those negotiations for his majority. I have—I have always thought that if he didn't have enough votes, if he didn't get 218 on his own, that there would be Democrats who could help put it over the top. It's just a question of how big that disparity is.

But I think that the fact that many of us have our unease with what is in there should signal to the Republicans that they should probably feel pretty be comfortable with the bill.

Q: Madam Leader, if there are a certain number of Democrats that are needed to push it over the top, is there a price for that, or is it free?

Leader Pelosi. Oh, this is about keeping government open, this is about our responsibility to the public.

Q: Yes, but you have leverage in that case.

Leader Pelosi. When you say "a price to pay," what do you mean?

Q: A price to pay for your support. You're in a discussion with the Speaker, and he needs your help on something very important like this.

Leader Pelosi. Well, I think that kind of negotiation is something that could have gone on before so that we could have weighed in on the bill. It's a little late for that because the bill is what it is. But, you know, I assume they have the votes. They seem pretty confident. I think you sound less confident than they do. They seem pretty confident about what they have, and, you know, since it's their product in terms of the House Republicans, they seem pretty confident that they are going to be able to deliver. And so we will see.

<...>

[vaberella]

43. Can you make this it's own thread?

Because I'm tired of these stupid posts on DU. There are people here who like looking entirely at the negative twist of things and frustrating to deal with.

[OhioBlue]

56. excellent post Pro! n/t

[CakeGrrl]

39. A hit piece making the President out to be in cahoots with Boehner against Pelosi?

Just a rallying point for those who continue to believe the President has abandoned the Dem party.

It's too bad the MSM tactics are so effective.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[blunderbuss]

48. Nancy Pelosi was aggrieved. not as much as i was when......

she took impeachment off the table

[craigmatic]

54. There was always some distance between her and Obama. But Nancy has

proven herself more essential to getting things done than Obama. If it wasn't for her we wouldn't have passed that budget bill at all. She has just as much power as ever now that Boner can't control his own caucus.

[Ramulux]

57. Can you imagine the republicans in the house being treated like this

back when they were in the minority?

[uponit7771]

59. *******ANOTHER HALF TRUTH OBAMA BASHING POST************

[opihimoimoi]

60. Milbank is trouble maker...cynical and asshole too

[JoePhilly]

62. Why doesn't Dana mention that the Senate's minority leader was also NOT INCLUDED.

Dana is a Dimwit.

Obama brought in the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, and the HOUSE MAJORITY leader.

He did not include either of the minority leaders.

If he included Pelosi, he would have had to include McConnell.

And that would have given Boehner some cover.

Dana must be pushing an agenda to not mention this fact.