The Blue State

Pelosi can't think of any mistakes she made

I completely stand behind my call a few days ago for Nancy Pelosi to step down as House Speaker.  We need a sea change of younger leaders that are allowed into leadership positions.  Ranking party leaders based on seniority only rewards those entrenched in the quicksand of the Washington establishment.

Other than networking with shady people, when you are part of the Washington establishment you start acting above everyone else.  In fact, you begin to sound like George W. Bush.  This week, when asked by a reporter about her biggest mistake as House Speaker, Pelosi could not think of one:

“I don’t want to sound like I’ve made no mistakes. I’m confident Ihave. I just haven’t — you just put me under the spot here, and maybeI’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one,” hesaid.

I don't know about all of you -- but I want a House Speaker that constantly evaluates him or herself, and has the courage to admit mistakes.  A true leader has the humility to be his or her own critic.  If you can't think of any mistakes, then you certainly are not in a position to learn from them.

Nancy Pelosi needs to resign

Bloggers, progressive activists and others who gave their hard-earned money to the Democrats in 2006 were utterly shocked by what their House Speaker said on Sunday.  Each of us bought into the notion that Nancy Pelosi would have the courage to force the President to change direction in Iraq. 

Today there are at least 30,000 more US troops in Iraq than when Pelosi first took the gavel.  It is true that Democrats need 67 votes in the Senate to override a Bush veto.  But according to Pelosi, even if Bush's veto gets overridden, Democrats don't have the constitutional authority to end the war.

Unacceptable!

Voters, she told Fox News Sunday, “want it to end and they had expectations that Congress could end it.” 

But, she added, “You know we can’t without a presidential signature.”

Wrong!  If you override Bush's veto, he does not have to sign anything, and the war will be defunded.  Pelosi should know that.  One of two things are going on in Pelosi's head:

1. Either she does not understand the legislative process; or
2. She is giving up on her efforts to lead Congressional action to end the war.

In either case, Nancy Pelosi is not fit to be Speaker of the House.  We need a Speaker with courage, and who gives voters exactly what they asked for last November.  On the issue of Iraq, her tenure as Speaker has been a miserable failure.

Democrats' new spending rule would balance budget by 2012

House Democrats recently passed a budget bill that institutes a 'pay as you go' rule.  In other words, no spending unless there is budget money available to pay for it.  Similar rules led to surpluses during the Clinton years, but were allowed to expire in 2001 after Republicans took control of both the Congress and White house:

Balancing the budget "is an urgent national priority," Rep. DennisCardoza, D-Calif., said during the debate, and "now is the time" tobring back the rules.

The House budget rules, approved 280-152, bar spending increases forany new program unless spending is simultaneously cut elsewhere ortaxes are raised to offset the cost.

Likewise, any reduction in tax revenues must beoffset by spending cuts or tax hikes in other areas. That change coulddoom Republican efforts to permanently extend tax cuts passed duringBush's first term, most of which expire at the end of 2010.

Some Republicans will complain that this bill raises taxes.  Don't let them fool you.  Nowhere in this bill does it say anything about a tax increase.  The bill simply specifies that spending cannot happen unless money is available to pay for it.

The good news is that Bush is not expected to veto it.  The only question is what will the Senate do with it?  If this thing makes it through, expect for there to be a crackdown on the pork and other wasteful spending that both parties have been getting away with for so long.

The only other obstacle is the farm bill, which will end up being rather expensive.  There are some that want to wave the pay-as-you-go rule in order to get the farm bill through -- but it is unlikely that will happen.

Democrats reach deal with Bush on Iraq

Democrats have reached a deal with the White House that would give President Bush the money he wants for Iraq.  The bill will not contain a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, nor will it force Bush to come back every three months for funding.

Translation: the Democrats have folded.  But that is not how House Majority leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is spinning it:

"The president has made it very clear he is not going to sign atimeline. We can't sign timelines over his veto. But the fact of thematter is I think we have moved this debate very substantially forwardin terms of accountability and demanding a new direction in Iraq," saidHouse Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Politically speaking, we can make three affirmations about this latest development:

• The Congressional Majority is not organized enough.
• The Democrats, more so than the White House, care more about funding our soldiers than winning a political battle.  The White House and Democrats played a game of chicken for three months.  Bush has made it clear that he would let the money run out in July if it means making the Democrats look bad.
• Bloggers like myself need to do a better job getting our daily message out in order to move the public in the right direction.

(Video) GOP opposes Iraq bill that includes Bush's own benchmarks

Just moments ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) took to the House floor and defended a proposed Iraq spending bill that would establish benchmarks for the President's current policy in Iraq.

If you recall, Bush said all along that our goal is to solve the political tensions, root out Al Qaeda and increase stability in the region.  Those are his goals.  This bill simply puts pressure on the Iraqi government to achieve those exact same benchmarks.  As Nancy Pelosi pointed out, how could Repubicans not support that?

PELOSI: The President's benchmarks -- these are the President's own benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq -- will be the centerpiece of that evaluation.  We would think that the President would embrace this legislation.  It has his benchmarks.  It asks for a progress report -- Perhaps he thinks there will be no progress so he is afraid of that report.  And then a vote in the House to continue the war.  The President's own benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq will be the centerpiece.

To top it all off, Pelosi drew a great comparison between this Iraq bill and No Child Left Behind:

PELOSI: It's interesting to me that in the President's No Child Left Behind legislation, he establishes standards for America's school children.  And if those children to not meet those standards, there are serious consequences for them, for their families, for their schools and for their school districts.  And yet, while holding America's school children accountable with consequences, the President refuses to hold the Iraqi government responsible with consequences while our young people in Iraq are dying.

Moments later, the bill passed 221 to 205.  It is uncertain whether the Senate will even consider the bill.  Let's hope they do.

(Video) Pelosi exposes Bush hypocrisy about timetables

Just minutes after President Bush vetoed the Democrats Iraq spending bill because he objected to a withdrawal date, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot back and took issue with Bush's inconsistent logic.  It was George W. Bush who, back in 1999, called on President Clinton to implement a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Kosovo:

PELOSI: The President said in his comments that he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them.  Yet, in 1999, on June 5th, then-Governor Bush said about President Clinton, "I think it is important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they would be withdrawn."  Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standards to his own activities.

Not that I expect consistency out of this Administration anyway.  I stopped expecting that a long time ago.

We Need A Middle Ground on Immigration Reform, NOW!

Pelosi:President Should Work Collaboratively on a Bipartisan Basis to PassComprehensive Immigration Reform

WASHINGTON, April 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

                         -- House Speaker Nancy

Pelosi issued the following statement today in response to 
President  Bush's remarks on immigration reform:
    "The President should work collaboratively and on a bipartisan basis to
pass comprehensive immigration reform. He should embrace proposals such as
the STRIVE Act by Congressmen Gutierrez and Flake, which provides an
excellent framework and reflects a strong commitment by a bipartisan group
of House Members toward realistic and comprehensive immigration reform.
    "Our priorities on immigration reform are clear. Our first
responsibility to the American people is their safety. We must secure our
borders and enforce our laws, while also protecting against discrimination
and adhering faithfully to the rule of law. At the same time, we must enact
immigration reform that is humane and honors our American tradition of
being a nation of immigrants.
    "By starting House Judiciary Committee hearings and introducing the
STRIVE Act last month, the House has already begun the hard work of
addressing immigration reform."

SOURCE Office of the Speaker of the House

 

DNC: President Joins FellowRepublicans on Immigration: Wants Nothing Done

WASHINGTON, April 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On the fourth
anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, President Bush decided his best PR
photo op would come on the Arizona border with Mexico, touting his
immigration proposal. The PR stunt, however, doesn't distract from Iraq so
much as it highlights another problem for Republicans, their failures on
border security and their internal strife on immigration reform.

He also failed to mention the fact that Republicans never actually funded
the 700-mile border fence they passed as a PR gimmick before the 2006
election. [Associated Press, 4/09/07; Washington Post, 10/12/06; Washington
Post, 10/6/06]

<--Lets change this

Immigration reform strategies are all over the place, it isabout time we start coming together and with a realistic view. It would be bothfinancially and physically impossible to accommodate the far right wing nuts anddeport all 12-20 million (estimated # of them) illegal immigrants, and it issimply ridiculous to let it continue the way it is as the far left nuts wouldhave it. I'm not against "loosening up" a bit, but I AM against anyoneand everyone coming and going as they please.

<-- To This

Pelosi Unfairly Accused?

An editorial in theWashington Post on April 5, 2007, Speaker Pelosi was criticized forallegedly botching a message to Syria's President.

The Editorial headline: "Pratfallin Damascas"

 

After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in  Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli  Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace  talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to  "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming  diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle  diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using  our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

 

  Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such  message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not  contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly  issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi  that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus  received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there  is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process  with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's  position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words  were mere propaganda.

The Chicago Tribune points out that the accuracy of the smear, may be incorrectas posted in their article : WasPelosi in Syria unfairly accused?   

Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, told me in a brief phone conversation:"We never said the (Israeli's) position changed."

Instead, he said, Pelosi accurately conveyed Israel's position: should theSyrians end their support for Hezbollah and Hamas, then the Israelis would bewilling to talk.

Daly pointed out that Pelosi was briefed by State Department officials beforeher meetings with the foreign leaders and that State Department officials alsoattended her meetings.

So if Pelosi really committed foreign policy flubs of the first order, theState Department is in a position to confirm as much.

The White House certainly received a read-out of what exactly Pelosi and theforeign leaders said in their meetings. Significantly, the White House has notopenly accused Pelosi of the foreign-policy missteps the Post had accused herof.

It seems that there aren't any conservatives that feel ademocrat should have talks with any country in an attempt to stabilizerelations.

Wallace Exposes Newt's Hypocrisy

Nancy Pelosi is getting quite a bit of coverage from the conservative mediaand the Republicans regarding her "unauthorized" diplomatic trip toSyria. First of all a republican was part of the group that went.

Newt Gingrich had a bit of his hypocrisy exposed on FOX News Sunday by ChrisWallace. During the Clinton administration, Speaker Gingrich took a trip toChina

Glenn Greenwald's ArticlefromThe Salon : "NewtGingrich's 1997 trip to China"

Back then, the media treated Gingrich like he was the American PrimeMinister, and his right-wing supporters had no problem with the House Speakertravelling and expressing his own foreign policy views which deviated from theClinton administration's

ThinkProgress : "FLASHBACK: Hastert Traveled Abroad, Told Foreign Leaders Not ToListen
To Clinton"

In 1997, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) led a delegation to Colombia at a timewhen U.S. officials were trying to attach human rights conditions to U.S.security assistance programs. Hastert specifically encouraged Colombian militaryofficials to“bypass” President Clinton and “communicate directly with Congress.”

The hypocrisy needs to stop. I don't care what side of the aisle it is comingfrom, it just needs to stop. It hurts the country and it accomplishes nothing(in the end)

 

More White House Hypocrisy

This is a follow up to the previous post TheAdministrations Latest Display of Hypocrisy

It appears the White House privately backed the RepublicansTrip To Syria, while bashing Pelosi's decision to go there.

Gabe Neville, Pitts' chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assadand the three Republicans was intended to be "low profile."

"It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said.

The complete article can be read here at TalkingPoints Memo