Read it and weep:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Friday that it would be “harmful” to Democrats if superdelegates were to give the party’s presidential nomination to a candidate who is trailing in the delegates awarded in primaries and caucuses.

snip

“But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?” asked Stephanopoulos.

“But it’s a delegate race,” Pelosi replied. “The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee.”  Read more 

The House, to its great credit, passed a FISA reform bill that doesn’t eviscerate the rule of law by granting the telcos retroactive immunity, and doesn’t completely gut the Fourth Amendment*. That’s good news, and if we get lucky, the whole abomination might just get deep-sixed, at which point we would return to the status quo ante legally, while much strengthened politically. Kudos, I freely grant, to Nancy Pelosi** and the rest of the House leadership, including — lambert blushes modestly for calling this one, against all odds — Steny Hoyer. That said, let’s do the classic blogospheric media critique thing on WaPo’s not totally fucked coverage. Jonathan Weisman reports:  Read more 

Remember when there was a burst of hope when a woman ascended to the Speakership of the House, and Hillary was the front runner? Remember when Barbara Boxer was beloved of progressives, before endorsing the Connecticut for McCain party candidate? Remember when Jackie Speier was the valiant survivor of a shooting incident that took the life of her employer and mentor Congressman Ryan?

You know why the public sours on Democratic Women politicians? Because the have a sense of entitlement, and they turn on the people who support them. Hillary is suffering not just because of her own sins, or the sexism of present contemporary society, a fact I get presented with every single day, but because of the arrogance of her cohort, the pure sense that the argument is over because of a kind of ownership built up by relationships. They can’t open their mouths without telling everyone that they do not care what other people think, that the girl’s tree house is closed and that anyone else will be clawed instantly for even looking at the rope.

That’s why the “B” word and even the “C” word so easily cross people’s lips, because everyone recalls back to the cheerleaders and class presidents of high school days.  Read more 

Scum. Primary challenges needed:

Some House Democrats were prepared to support immunity, regardless. In a Jan. 28 letter, 21 Democrats in the conservative Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., supporting [retroactive] immunity and listing other provisions that they believed were needed in a FISA bill.

They wrote that the Senate bill “contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change.”

Meanwhile, Steny Hoyer says:  Read more 

Here:

I realize that Porter Goss and others are likely trying to taint Democrats with their own bad acts by leaking this information. But sadly, these Democrats actually do seem to be complicit. If it’s the case that they have been being blackmailed with this information all these years, then Goss was quite foolish to show his cards. Now these Democrats have little to lose by revealing what they know, and they should. They must all come clean, take their medicine and tell the American people what they knew about the administration’s torture regime from the beginning. They may suffer politically for it, but then they probably deserve to.

There is nothing stopping Speaker Pelosi from holding hearings on the tapes and the torture regime as a whole. It’s all “out there” now.

Bingo.  Read more 

[Pelosi’s statement.]

Well, I guess now I know why impeachment was “off the table.” Anybody for Barney Frank as the new speaker? Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen in WaPo:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique[ly illegal and unconstitutional?] CIA program designed to wring [torture] vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the Bipartisan group, which included future-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites [gulags] and the harsh techniques [torture] interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill [not to mention the US military**]. But on that day, no objections were raised.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods [torture] during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Yeah, the Village is a big sack of pus just waiting to be lanced. Unfortunately, some of that pus is blue.

Nice going, there, Leader Nance.  Read more 

… Majority Leader turned out to be Leader Nance, who took impeachment off the table and gutted FISA and the Fourth Amendment.

So color me skeptical on this whole “First Woman” thing, OK?

Including “First Woman President.”  Read more 

Via Digby, Matt Stoller gives a telling vignette of Toxic Leader Nance:

I just got back from a fancy NYC fundraiser headlined by Nancy Pelosi for Kirsten Gillibrand to which I snagged a ticket.

I went up to Pelosi after her odd speech to ask her in person about her support for Al Wynn. I said ’I helped organize a fundraiser for Donna Edwards’, and I was about to talk about retroactive immunity and ask her to take this as a sign of frustration, as well as to tell her how proud she makes me as the first female Speaker of the House. But the moment I mentioned Al Wynn, Pelosi’s whole face abruptly changed, her smile melted away, and she got hostile and said in an icy voice ’I know about that.’ She then turned away to talk to someone else.

Classy!

There seem to be two types of frustration, insider frustration and activist frustration. Many of the Democrats in Congress, Pelosi for instance, are insider frustrated. They know something is vaguely wrong somewhere, they know their activists supporters are unhappy, they are still raising lots of money, they know they are in power and feted at fancy breakfasts, and they are unwilling to consider new strategies that actually challenge the constraints they see as permanent.

And when someone else does, they get mean, their face turns cold, and they walk away.

So, if inflicting pain on the Beltway Dems is the only way to get their attention, so fucking what?  Read more 

Gallup, via USA Today:

Meanwhile, Bush reached an unwelcome [Oh? To whom] record. By 64%-31%, Americans disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they “strongly disapprove” of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.

Of course, during the Nixon era, people had some outlet, because the Democrats held Nixon accountable for his crimes, instead of caving and capitulating and granting him and his retroactive immunity. Yeah, Ford pardoned Nixon, but with the Beltway Dems, Bush’s pardon is pre-approved!  Read more 

Every Congressional session should have a name, and “the im[p|m]unity congress” seems especially appropriate for this one. From the telcos to torture, it seems like any high crime the Republicans commit, Integritudinous Harry and Leader Nance are willing—nay, eager—to cut them some slack, given them a break, grant them immunity for it, and let them skate.  Read more 

Madame 10% thinks she’s got a PR problem, so she needs a PR solution:

Nearly one year after recapturing control of Congress, House Democratic [cough] leaders will embark on a publicity blitz starting in November to combat a dismal 25 percent approval rating.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been [cough] leading the caucus’s public relations effort.

Democratic [cough] leadership aides huddled with rank-and-file chiefs of staff, legislative directors and press secretaries on Monday to persuade them to do more to promote a positive message. Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, and Mike McCurry, one of President Bill Clinton’s former press secretaries, also were on hand to press for a concerted effort.

And I’m 100% certain that Celinda and Mike had one very important question uppermost in their minds:  Read more 

Still, it’s the thought that counts. Madame 11% stepped up to reinforce Bush’s authority when it counted, and that always gets points in the Village. I’m sure we’ll see much more of this from Leader Nance in the coming weeks and months.

But why did this pissant resolution condemning Stark for saying mean things about Bush even come to the floor?

Couldn’t Leader Nance have saved her energy for something really important, like censuring MoveOn?  Read more 

AP:

Pelosi Rebukes Fellow Democrat

Nice work, Nance. Couldn’t you save it for the Republicans? Stark said:

“You don’t have money to fund the war or children,” Stark accused Republicans. “But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

After numerous Republicans called on him to apologize, Stark said it was they who should be apologizing, for failing to provide the votes to override Bush’s veto.

Exactly right. They should apologize. And as MJS points out, “amusement is as amusement does.” Bush was amused by blowing up frogs, and electrocuting prisoners. Why the heck wouldn’t blowing up kids amuse Mr. “Feels Good”?

Anyhow, here’s Leader Nance’s sternly worded statement:  Read more 

Harry, Nance, nice work on that leader thing. I’m proud of you. WaPo:

Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government’s domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program, according to congressional sources.

Disclosure of the deal followed a decision by House Democratic leaders to pull a competing version of the measure from the floor because they lacked the votes to prevail over Republican opponents and GOP parliamentary maneuvers. [Shystee’s Process Dodge]

Unbelievable? All too believable.  Read more 

Apparently, only money protects you. How Gilded Age. Open Left:

The House just passed the Free Flow of Information Act, a ’shield law’ protecting journalists.  Here’s the rub.

The bill provides journalists with a qualified privilege as to sources and information, while at the same time, recognizing the need for effective law enforcement and robust national security. A blogger who regularly engages in journalistic activities - such as gathering and publishing news and information for dissemination to the public - and does so for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain would be covered by the shield as a journalist.

Well, splendid. Maybe somebody can tell me how start-ups would happen? Because apparently you wouldn’t be able to start out small on blogger and grow, the way Atrios did (or FDL did when they started). So, you have to get venture capital to start blogging now?  Read more 

This time, Nancy Pelosi:

“We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow,” Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their “passion,” [that is, their money and time] Pelosi called it “a waste of time” for them to target Democrats. “They are advocates,” [Pelosi] said. “We are leaders.”

Really.

Funny, I would have thought that Pelosi was the Speaker of the House of Representives and a Representative herself.

And the last thing I remember Pelosi “leading” was the stampede of Democrats heading back to the district on vacation after they’d betrayed the Fourth Amendment, at midnight, when Harry Reid managed to pass the Republican bill gutting FISA.

But wait: There’s more!  Read more 

Since the Reptilicans in the Senate are now filibustering literally everything, 60 votes to get anything done is now the new and—according to our famously free press—entirely unremarkable norm. Who’s responsible?

FDL’s scarecrow:

Under the Constitution, all appropriation bills must arise in the House. No monies can be appropriated for any federally funded project — including earmarks or “pork” — unless authorized by bills initiated or approved in the Democratic House. That’s power. But I haven’t heard a peep from Republicans complaining about their pet projects being held up.

Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has explained why the Democratic leadership cannot use the power of the majority to more carefully control what does and does not emerge from the House and Senate.

Bingo.  Read more 

Who knew such a thing was even possible? WaPo:

When Army Gen. David H. Petraeus last week proposed withdrawing more than 20,000 U.S. troops from Iraq, some congressional Democrats nodded their heads and saw it as a positive, if insufficient, step forward. Some wanted to take credit. After all, they reasoned, the drawdown, the benchmarks report, even Petraeus’s Capitol Hill testimony came about only because of Democratic pressure.

Within hours, that idea was shot down. When House Democratic leaders convened in the office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) at 5:30 p.m. Monday, strategists concluded they were already getting credit for what was happening but that voters wanted much more. So Pelosi, according to aides at the meeting, insisted that Democrats coordinate their message and dictated what that message would be: The general’s plan meant 10 more years of war, or even “endless war.”

And here, Pelosi’s telling nothing more than the truth—always best, as the Conservative movement is beginning to painfully discover**, because not only do you have to remember your lies, other people are more likely to remember your lies than you are. If the model for Iraq is Korea, as Bush has said it is, we’ll be there for 50 years. Ponies for everyone! Iraq-4-Evah!  Read more 

As usual, The Shrill One nails it (TS):

Snow Job in the Desert
In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressing the United Nations Security Council, claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He did not, in fact, present any actual evidence, just pictures of buildings with big arrows pointing at them saying things like “Chemical Munitions Bunker.” But many people in the political and media establishments swooned: they admired Mr. Powell, and because he said it, they believed it.

Mr. Powell’s masters got the war they wanted, and it soon became apparent that none of his assertions had been true.

Until recently I assumed that the failure to find W.M.D., followed by years of false claims of progress in Iraq, would make a repeat of the snow job that sold the war impossible. But I was wrong. The administration, this time relying on Gen. David Petraeus to play the Colin Powell role, has had remarkable [Oh?] success creating the perception that the “surge” is succeeding, even though there’s not a shred of verifiable evidence to suggest that it is.

Read the rest of the story for the depressing details of the regime’s PR blitzkreig.

But there is one obvious question:  Read more 

A little more vintage 2006 Newsweek. Plowing through their article on the bureaucratic infighting surrounding the regime’s various enabling laws on torture and warrantless surveillance, this sentence jumped out, though unsourced:

Reasoning that there was no time to obtain warrants from a secret court set up under FISA (a sometimes cumbersome process), the Bush administration justified going around the law by invoking a post-9/11 congressional resolution authorizing use of force against global terror. The eavesdropping program was very closely held, with cryptic briefings for only a few congressional leaders.

Hmmm…. Who were these “few” congressional leaders, one wonders?  Read more 

Gallup:

A new Gallup Poll finds Congress’ approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.

There was a slight interruption in the downward trend in congressional approval ratings at the beginning of this year when party control changed hands from the Republicans to the Democrats following last fall’s midterm elections. In January 2007, 35% of Americans approved of Congress, a significant increase from the 21% who approved of Congress in December 2006.

But that “honeymoon” period for the new Democratically controlled Congress was brief, as its job ratings dropped below 30% in March 2007 and have now fallen below where they were just before the Democrats took over.

Harry, Nancy: Nice work. I knew you could do it. I’m proud of you.

Our famously free press will try to spin this as the product of a lack of teh Bipartisan and the need for unity and “they’re all the same” but I think there’s a much simpler and more basic explanation:  Read more 

Regarding the FISA betrayal, The Grey Lord writes:

Not Worth It
As I’ve suggested before, there’s little value in expending any effort supporting a Democratic leadership this incompetent. I’m not the most negative of the dirty hippie bloggers, but we all have our lines. Not that my mighty blog is all powerful in the grand scheme of things, but there are more important thing to focus on at the moment. Happy to readjust my views when given a reason to do so.

Bingo.

Just one question, though:  Read more 

Balloon Juice does a close reading of the text:

Starting off, Marty Lederman has explained the limitations of the six-month “sunset” clause much better than I did a few days ago:

Although section 6© provides that the operative provisions of the Act “shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,” i.e., on February 1, 2008, there is an express exception in section 6(d), which reads as follows:

AUTHORIZATIONS IN EFFECT.—Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).

Thus, “acquisitions” authorized by Attorney General Gonzales will be permissible for one year, even if that period extends beyond the ostensible February 1, 2008 sunset date. I think it’s fair to assume that the Attorney General will authorize a system of such acquisitions on or close to February 1, 2008, which will mean that the warrantless surveillance can continue until … February 1, 2009, or twelve days after the next President is sworn in.

Oh gawd, it’s worse than I thought again. Balloon Juice summarizes the awfulness and gives a highly relevant scenario:  Read more