Hullabaloo

Sunday, December 20, 2009

 
Dazed And Confused

by digby

Can someone explain what this means to me?

The Dean on Democrats failing his president:

The worst came in a news report of the year-end news conference held by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Asked how she would deal with next year's looming tests of congressional Democratic support for Obama's decision to send 30,000 more U.S. troops into the Afghanistan struggle, she said that "the president's going to have to make his case" himself. Reminding reporters that she had told lawmakers in June, when funding was approved for 17,000 additional troops, that it would be the last time she would ever lobby her members to back such a step, she made it absolutely clear that she felt no obligation of party loyalty to support Obama on the most important national security decision he has made.

The liberal legislator from San Francisco could not have been plainer if she had added, "You're on your own, buster."

With this as an example from the No. 1 Democrat on Capitol Hill, one has to wonder why liberal Democrats are so furious about senators such as Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson negotiating their own deals with the White House on the health-care bill.

How does Pelosi saying that she can't whip her Democrats to support another supplemental explain why Nelson and Lieberman are making their own deals on health care? I don't get it.

It wasn't Pelosi, by the way, who promised there would be no more war supplementals, it was Obama. And when they went for one anyway last spring Pelosi lost an entire layer of skin in the process trying to get it passed:

Health care is not the hardest vote I've had this year. Not by far. That was the [war] supplemental. That was the worst. Energy was a heavy lift. But you're talking substance. You're discussing issues with people. But we had never thought we'd have to do another supplemental. Not that we would have to vote for. But then the president brought home the IMF and Republicans all took a hike. Then we were stuck with it. Oh brother! That was the hardest. Budget, stimulus, those were all heavy lifts. None of it is easy. But you get ready for things like energy, health, education, and budget. But the supplemental? That's where we have to do a heavy lift? We all said we were never ever voting for this again. But in any event, I think the administration knows that that was it.

Now I have a sneaking feeling that the Republicans are going to be looking for something to allow them to run the same game again. They don't have a lot to gain by supporting the president on this. They're firmly ensconced in the pro-war camp and the Democrats are evidently constitutionally unable to make a "why do they hate the troops" critique stick. If they can find something to hang their hats on I think they could easily calculate that even on this it would be more to their advantage to force the president to try to get the Democrats to go through another exhausting negotiation with themselves just before the election. (And who knows, Rahm might have some other poison pill he can only pass by shoving it down liberals' throats.)

But if that doesn't happen, Pelosi won't have to whip the caucus. The president will have enough votes to pass the supplemental with Republicans and conservative Democrats. And the base will get screwed again, which is always good. I don't see what Broder has to complain about.


.
digby 12/20/2009 12:00:00 PM |