... voting date and switched from a caucus to a primary (thank Jeebus). Funny how some rules just can't be changed.

it's a party. that's an apples and oranges comparison and i don't think it's relevant to the point i'm making.

we're told: "we don't have the votes." but here she is "defying" the preznit and "changing the rules." well, if she has that kind of power, she doesn't use it re: war funding...why, again?

that's what i want to talk about.

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy...

she shows such determination when it suits her.

Both her and Harry Reid are a mess.

and they don't really care that much otherwise.

Lieberman says that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid already has promised him he will retain his committee chairmanship and seniority, even if Democrats pick up seats this November and no longer need his vote. Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, confirmed the conversation.

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2...

Senator Lieberman is not a Democrat. This is fucking retarded.

Surely there must be an actual Democratic Senator who can do this job.

Somebody please explain to me why we're doing this.

Somebody please explain to me why Sen Reid should be majority leader.

Two examples of politicos deciding arbitrarily what's "off the table" and what isn't.

i actually could see Hillary steamrollering Pelosi in order to get stuff moving, but Obama wouldn't even try.

Congress has 90 days to vote on any trade bills the White House sends their way. Bush's fast track authority expired July 1, 2007 but Peru, Columbia and Korea are still covered by it since the US signed those agreements by the deadline.

From the same NYT article:

Pelosi said she will bring a procedural change to the House floor on Thursday that would remove the timetable under which Congress would have had to take up trade bills within 90 legislative days after they are received from the White House.

The House has 60 legislative days and the Senate has 30. If Congress takes up the bill now, it wouldn't pass. Maybe Pelosi is changing the rules to buy time for an agreement that will pass but I don't pretend to know what she's up to.

that's all--they want to pass it, but know it will hurt them.

Seems to be a favorite sport in some quarters. The Columbian trade agreement is political, everything is political, and passing it this year isn’t probably possible even if it were desirable.

Since we’re all being mindreaders, my best guess is Pelosi and the Dems want a quid pro quo from Bush; if he will allow the Dem-backed assistance program for workers who lost jobs to trade agreements to pass the Senate and sign it into law, then she will allow the Columbian pact to come up for a vote. From the above-linked NYT:

The House last year passed legislation to expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program that provides financial aid and training to people who lose jobs as a result of trade, but the White House threatened a presidential veto and the Senate never took it up.

CD asks, why can Pelosi do this with a trade deal but can’t block war funding?

Answer: Votes.

She has enough votes to derail the Columbia trade deal, but does not have enough votes to hold up war funding. Not a popular answer, because it means that the blame has to be placed on the individual congressmembers rather than just slapping around Pelosi. So much easier to demonize a good person than it is to do the detailed work needed to identify the individuals actually responsible.

Shameful, I think, to castigate someone with 90%+ approvals for her whole career from just about every progressive ratings group there is, and with approvals near zero from every right-wing reactionary group.

Shameful, I think, to castigate someone because she can’t do the impossible.

Shameful, I think, to castigate someone who is open and honest and speaks her mind; can’t have that, for sure.

Much more important to drive people like this from the public sphere, make their lives miserable so they leave the field open for more calloused, more deceitful, more criminal types who will laugh off public criticism.

Down With Pelosi! WWTSBQ?

it's not like we're critizing her for extraneous things--jeez.

every single obstructionist GOP move has derailed tons of good stuff--why is that?

she could have not allowed any of it, but didn't--she sucks.

"it's HER JOB to roundup enough votes on imp issues--"

Is that like a cowgirl, with a lariat and a cutting horse? Or like a Stazi director, rounding up any dissenters and whippimg them into shape? What does "round up" even mean in the context of a democracy? Sort of a dictatorial power position where individuals - elected representatives, no less - are forced or coerced or bribed or - what? - "rounded up" somehow?

And then: "every single obstructionist GOP move has derailed tons of good stuff'. Hmm. In the House this session? A list, please, and not one or two but a "ton" of good stuff. Let's discuss.

And "she sucks"? Come now, amberglow; you can do better.

it's simple and clear--it's what Majority & Minority leaders, Whips, and Speakers actually DO.

this is just a taste of what she's allowed--just a small taste--from Dec 07--
"...the 49 member Senate Republican minority has done something no Senate minority in American history has ever done: they’ve filibustered more bills than any Congress ever has — and they broke the record with a full year to spare. ... The latest came this morning, when the Senate GOP filibustered an omnibus budget bill, the 62nd Republican filibuster since the 110th Congress began in January.

“In just one session, a minority in Congress has prevented a mind-blowing 62 pieces of legislation from going to the floor for an up or down vote,” ..." -- http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc...

The title of the carpetbagger post you link to is:

Congratulations to the record-breaking Senate GOP — Most. Obstructionist. Ever.

And I completely agree, the GOP minority plus BlueDogs have obstructed the Senate - but how again is that Pelosi's fault?

Are she and Hoyer - not a reliable ally, BTW - supposed to round up votes in the Senate?

You must have something more than that to pin on Pelosi, something that justifies "she sucks."

Maybe your use of "ton" was overstated. Can you bring me a half a ton? Maybe a hundredweight? A couple of pounds? Anything?

Come ahead, we can have a civil discussion about this, and I do want to see what you have that even comes close to raising anger and condemnation. I'll be here all week.

here's a better one then-- http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles...
-- GOP Maneuvers Send Dems Scrambling

the "changing the rules" part. that's my point. if one can "change the rule" to not allow a "required" vote, well...hopefully you get my drift.

reid told me to my face, "i'm a expert on senate procedure." OK. so what tricks does he have? does she? don't tell me there are none. "not enough votes" is beyond lame, if you know the history of legislation and that process in this country.

if you have the power to "change the rules," you have the power to seriously fuck with war funding. perhaps not get "enough votes" to end it, but you sure as shit can slow it down, make it more difficult to distribute to war profiteers, etc.

stop making excuses for her. she has real power. this is proof that she only uses it for some issues. or tell me how i'm wrong. i have held plenty of jobs in which i've come to understand which "rules" can be broken and bent, and when doing so really helps my case and hurts those i oppose or compete with. nancy seems to lack that perception.

Eeesh. And what is the upshot of this little hit-piece from the right-wing mouthpiece? Republicans harassed Pelosi with procedural motions that had neither meaning nor ultimately any effect, but that did serve as fodder for articles like this one that are designed to denigrate Pelosi and the Democrats.

When House Republican leaders offered a motion to recommit during recent debate on legislation to overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, they set the stage for a familiar scene of Democrats scrambling to save a high-profile measure.

Republican leadership aides concede the motion, which would have made the FISA changes not applicable to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, was ultimately meaningless from a policy standpoint. [emphasis added]

-snip-

First, GOP leaders come up with a purely political motion on a prime piece of Democratic legislation or a must-pass bill.

Or they use procedural delaying tactics on the floor. Either gambit has the potential of bringing action on the bill to a halt.

GOP acting like a bunch of drunken fratboys, playing pranks and laughing at the results. Well, that sure is ample proof that Pelosi “sucks” – Not.

Meanwhile, out of the commitments Pelosi made to get progressive legislation through the House in the first 100 legislative hours, how did she do – in spite of the Republican jerk-around tactics?

Make Americans safer here at home

• We made our very first vote the implementation of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission national security recommendations.
Make our economy fairer

• We voted to increase the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years—to give American workers an overdue pay raise.

Make college more affordable for every American

• We voted to cut student loan interest rates in half.

Make America more energy independent and help fight global warming

• We voted to roll back multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil companies – already enjoying record profits.

• We will reinvest here at home in renewable energy and energy efficiency – spending our energy dollars in the Midwest, not the Middle East.

Offer hope for new cures to devastating diseases

• We voted to expand research and help unlock the promise of stem cell therapies to alleviate human suffering and cure diseases.
Help reduce the cost of drugs for seniors and Americans with disabilities

• We voted to require Medicare to leverage its substantial bargaining power to buy prescription drugs and pass the savings on to the people.

Clean up Washington and the fiscal mess

• We put the interests of all Americans ahead of the special interests by passing tough Congressional ethics reform, restoring “pay-as-you-go” budgeting, and restricting spending earmarks.

Once out of the House, Pelosi has no control – zero control – of what happens to legislation in a divided Senate where the GOP and BlueDogs have a controlling majority. She has no control over Bush vetoes. With rare exception, there are not enough votes in the House to override a veto – also not her fault, blame the damn ignorant voters who keep putting idiotic Republicans into office.

So that was not even a pennyweight of evidence. Take your time, think it through; I’m not going anywhere anytime soon.

Or, reconsider your views on Pelosi; she’s suffered the same MSM/VRWC beating that you recognize when it happens to HRC, maybe if you squint just a little you can see how they’ve demonized Pelosi – and how the Left has bought a pile of untruths just the same way for both of them.

quoting a show i like, sorry. the woman who says it is wearing skin tight leather pants and melts iron with her bare hands. jsyk.

anyway. yes, that's all nice. how many soldiers died today in iraq? and for what, and why, and for whom? and how much did you pay for it? you, and your grandchildren?

when you're ready to admit that these are the only questions that truly matter, and why our "leaders" can't seem to address them, we'll be on the same page. it's odd; i thought you older than i, i would've assumed you'd be as impatient and angry with the excuses for why war "has to happen" as i am. she has no excuse, or the title "leader" of the house has no real meaning. and anyway, republicans always seem to get their way, these last few decades. why is that, and why can't the dems accomplish the same?

because they don't want to. i understand that, even if some don't.

pissed off. "ethics reform?" because oh, yeah, there's no corruption in the Village right now, and every contract is bidded, competitive, and reviewed. and no republican is stealing from the treasury or breaking the law. because unlike impeachment, ethics reform isn't "off the table," darnit!

again, tell me why some dems "must" vote in favor of war funding. let's get down and dirty. i heard a similar argument form folks i was very personal with here at the state house, re various budget issues. you know why they "couldn't" vote in favor of things like food for starving old americans or education for the poor and neediest? because it would've cost these "democract" a good profile in the media. not because they were sure that such progressive stances would cost them votes, oh no! but because they were told by their 'friends' in the media that to take such progressive stances is "unpopular." nancy and the village "democrats" are much the same. never mind that ~80% of the country is opposed to the war, and nancy's district is in fucking SF for crying out loud. she can't take any "chances" or procedural "risks" to make the war end. heavens no!

wait, let me grab my pearls. we've had "ethics reform," why am i worrying about millions of dead and displaced iraqis and thousands of slaughterd american soldiers? halliburton is making money, and nancy has a +5m home in sunny CA. i'm sure it's just me being unreasonalbe and pissy, as well as stupid for not understanding why my nieces and nephew will pay approximately the cost of an education at harvard for republican policy today. and democratic complicity, but hey, never mind that. she's "on our side."

universal health care = wasted on the sands of iraq, these last 5 years. that's my new sig, clearly i need to remind folks of that truth.

Ah, CD; when have you ever done otherwise?

I did answer, you know, and honestly. She doesn’t have the votes to challenge military funding. You, and others, may want that to mean something deeply dark about her character, but it doesn’t. She isn’t the Magic Speaker Faery, able to wave a wand and turn Bluedogs and Republicans into rational decent people. The blame for there not being enough votes to do something about the Iraq occupation rests with the GOP and the BlueDogs and the voters that put them in office – not Pelosi.

Regarding rules changes, I know you know how this works in Congress so why are you baiting with this fallacy? Rules for the session are set at the beginning, on opening day. Thereafter it requires a vote, a majority of the entire House, to change them. Pelosi does not have the power to change them all by herself. She has the votes to change the rules regarding this single piece of trade legislation, because not even the dumbass GOPers want to have to deal with it. She does not have the votes to hold up or trim military spending.

Not enough votes. Honestly, that is the reason. It is a reason, not an excuse. Ball in your court – make me a list of legislators long enough to block/trim/condition any military spending bill that affects Iraq. Then we’ll talk about how it is in any way Pelosi’s fault.

As for Reid personally telling you how he’s an “expert on senate procedure”, well; if you believe every chest-puffing braggadocio that comes from the mouth of a middle-aged man in the presence of a young hottie, then I’ve got some stories for you. Further, what Reid claims doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on what Pelosi can accomplish in the House – does it? If so, please explain.

So about Pelosi and the rules. Votes. That’s all there is, and if you have any evidence to the contrary I’m happy to take a look at it. Otherwise, calling me lame because you don’t like an answer that doesn’t fit with your premise that Pelosi is complicit in the Bush criminal gang‘s theft and murder conspiracy won’t suffice. I say she isn’t.

We can, I suppose, just disagree but then you’ll have to put up with me continuing to say Oh No She Isn’t on a regular basis. You and others are the ones making the big personal condemnation. I ask for the evidence to support it. For you to try and turn it around and ask me to defend Pelosi is a transparent rhetorical tactic that I’ve taken up this time because the answer is so simple and straightforward – she doesn’t have the votes.

Honestly.

I'll match you outrage for outrage and yes I'm waaaay older than you so my cumulative Anger Quanta far exceeds yours. Don't even go there.

If you're arguing that everything is everyone's fault, that there is no difference between Dems and the GOP, it makes it difficult to know where the pressure point would be. There are so many places to lay blame; on my list, a very long one, Pelosi just isn't on it. I would take 500 Pelosis in Congress and be drowned in bliss.

given the choice of Pelosi x 535 or Neugebauer x 535, I'll take Pelosi.

At least until we can get some real Dems to run.

Since we’re all being mindreaders, my best guess is Pelosi and the Dems want a quid pro quo from Bush;

If that's what these fools are waiting on...

they haven't learned a damn thing in the past 7 years.

I present all of you with Ernie Chambers

Chambers is famous for an unsurpassed knowledge of legislative rules, which he uses to derail bills that threaten those he calls the “downtrodden.” This attracts the criticism that he is “the great obstructionist,” better at halting legislation than creating laws. As one colleague observed, “In Washington they call it a filibuster. In Lincoln, they call it Ernie.”

Pelosi and Reid could learn a few things.

Unfortunately Ernie is being forced out. We passed term limits a few years ago. (crafted especially to 'get rid' of Ernie)

and all the respect that is due the the fine citizens of Nebraska, but what's the point here? That if Pelosi had been more of a pain in the ass she'd have been driven out of the legislature?

Pelosi is just who she is, imperfect and sometimes mistaken; human. What she isn't is a co-conspirator in the great Bush-Cheney-VRW criminal conspiracy, nor is she a fool or a bumbler or an idiot, and it is IMO both morally wrong to accuse her of any of those and tactically wrong to bash her for things outside her control or influence.

To do so degrades the debate. It demeans people of good will, and trivializes the magnitude of evil being done by the criminals. There are many bad people in Congress, in the Executive, and in the Judiciary. It does not help in opposing them to throw one of the few remaining decent people under the bus. Pelosi has a fine title, but against the magnitude of evil power entrenched in DC she does not have enough influence or capacity to stand alone and stop it.

More and better Dems, and especially a Dem in the White House. Then we'll all see what Pelosi can do, and here's a promise; if it turns out I'm wrong, I'll write a long apology here and work my butt off to get her thrown out of office. I'll join Code Pink and sleep on her doorstep. I'll follow her around and embarass her everywhere she goes.

But until there's some actual evidence that she's a bad person, I'll stay with my current estimation that she's a decent person doing a decent job against forces stronger than she can currently overcome. If that pisses some people off, well; too bad, get used to it.

What she isn’t is a co-conspirator in the great Bush-Cheney-VRW criminal conspiracy, nor is she a fool or a bumbler or an idiot, and it is IMO both morally wrong to accuse her of any of those and tactically wrong to bash her for things outside her control or influence.

Say what...

I'm criticizing Pelosi for exactly what she does have control and influence over...what happens on the floor of the House.

That's the point.

Ernie Chambers is a one man show, and not even in a position of power such as Nancy's...

and I'm to feel sorry for her why?

She can't mobilize enough members from her own party to block Bush's wishes?

Nancy needs the benefit of a super majority and no veto threat to be honestly judged?

Well jeez.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVyqGv9FqD4

please take in this smackdown of republicans by Barney Frank.

All based upon 'the rules'.

LOL.

Barney Frank for speaker of the house if you ask me.

*edit*

And this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9AXXZTD6dw

You do know that Barney is a staunch supporter of Pelosi? Unwavering, unmodulated, unequivocal support. Barney is a huge admirer of Pelosi, supported her for Speaker and has refuted every critic who has attacked her in any way. He’s a far more unquestioning supporter of Pelosi than I am.

As I have asked so many times, and each time gotten silence in reply, tell me exactly what Pelosi should have tried to accomplish more than she has done, and exactly how it could have been accomplished – not interested at all in a list of things she might have tried and failed at, just a list of things that could have been done and how.

She has made two mistakes this session - accepting private assurances by some Republicans that they would work with her to rein in Bush, and going public with that assurance; and letting the August ’07 FISA amendment go through without closer review. She's apologized for both of those, and stopped renewal of the PAA amendment. The lies of the House and Senate Republicans are out of her control, as are their votes and the votes of the BlueDogs and the votes in the Senate and the vetoes of Bush.

If you believe otherwise, then by all means please tell me exactly how the Speaker of the House can control this session without trying to assume dictatorial powers - exactly the same sort of attempt at dictatorship we all abhor in Bush. Take your time, no rush; I'll be here waiting.

You do know that Barney is a staunch supporter of Pelosi? Unwavering, unmodulated, unequivocal support. Barney is a huge admirer of Pelosi, supported her for Speaker and has refuted every critic who has attacked her in any way. He’s a far more unquestioning supporter of Pelosi than I am.

Yes. And.

Would Frank carry out his duties in the same fashion as Pelosi has?

Pure speculation of course, but Frank's disposition seems to suggest that no he would not.

Whether or not he displays loyalty to her publicly has nothing to do with my point.

And when exactly did Pelosi 'apologize' for her miscalculations in regards to giving republicans the benefit of the doubt?

She appears to have learned nothing as far as I can tell?

If you believe otherwise, then by all means please tell me exactly how the Speaker of the House can control this session without trying to assume dictatorial powers - exactly the same sort of attempt at dictatorship we all abhor in Bush.

Tell you 'exactly' how?

I thought I provided my example already?

You block everything the republicans want to do.

Period.

Outside of a very limit scope of legislation that 'must' be passed, nothing else gets through.

No pork. No nothing. Nada. Zero. Not even Dem pork. (ohhhhhhh, provocative)

All the while, sending out members to do interviews with the press explaining exactly why things are being done in such a manner.

I'm certainly not attempting to make a 'purity' argument. But to paint Pelosi as a victim of circumstance rings hollow to me. At some point Dems are going to have to confront republicans, and do so in strong fashion.

Pelosi nor Reid seem capable of carrying that out.

And Nancy's recent musings to the press about the election aren't helping her case either, and further proves what I stated originally...

when Pelosi wants to flex her influence she does so.

Against republicans...not so much.

How about pointing the proverbial pistol towards the opposition for once? I'm tired of being shot in the face by one of my 'own'.

Because that worked out so well. Driven from office by his party, and lost the presidential election to the opposition. Sorry to read you're disappointed that Pelosi has not emulated Newt’s political philosophy. I am grateful she isn't that much of a fool.

What Frank would do in a job he doesn't want is just speculation, and his support for Pelosi has been vocal, repeated and unequivocal. If he disapproved of her he could just keep quiet, couldn't he? When he says Pelosi is doing as well as anyone could possibly do under the circumstances, I'll take Barney at his word and not your speculation.

Still waiting for a viable plan of action with specifics from you - or anyone else - and no, acting like Newt Gingrich is not what I nor anyone in her caucus expects from Pelosi. If she tried that she'd get the boot just like Newt.

And this: "How about pointing the proverbial pistol towards the opposition for once? I’m tired of being shot in the face by one of my ’own’."

Quite so. Stop attacking Pelosi and get after the real criminals; you are distracting from the serious work at hand.

how you refuse to see any point besides your own.

It's not my job to go after the 'real' criminals...

it's NANCY'S.

But you go on.

'viable' plan.

Feh.

to formulate any plan other than Blame Nancy.

I see your point, clearly, and you are wrong. If you are right, should be an easy exercise to demonstrate how Nancy should proceed. Take your time, I'll be around.

And you're wrong about this as well: "It’s not my job to go after the ’real’ criminals…" That is in fact the job of every decent citizen, and neither Nancy nor any other person in leadership can be expected to do it alone. Waste your time ragging on her while the real criminals flourish and you only serve to enable them.

But you go on.