Was yesterday's moderate Republican kabuki on Iraq part of a deal with the Blue Dogs to betray Pelosi and continue Bush's war?

lambert's picture

[Welcome, wingers [DCOW]. Welcome, PantLoads media. Enjoy reality...]

Somebody's talking to AP:

As Democratic leaders feud [nice trivialization there, AP!] with the White House on Iraq war spending, lawmakers from both parties are working quietly to break the impasse. House members will vote Thursday on a new Iraq bill hotly contested by the White House, opposed by nearly all Republicans and unlikely to survive in the Senate.

[A] dozen or so members in Congress [are] attempting to strike a Bipartisan compromise on the war...

And a "compromise" would look like what? More Friedman Units for Bush? Appointing Petraeus Consul by a consensus of the general will? Appointing Petraeus's horse consul? Stamping tiny feet and waving tiny fists and getting really, really mad like the Moderate Republicans just did?

"We'll see what happens," said Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Ala. "A lot of us are coming together across the aisle. We're under the radar now, but we're meeting."

Ah yes, Bud Cramer. Founder of the Blue Dogs. He'd betray Pelosi, the party, and the country in a heartbeat, wouldn't he? Especially if he could hold onto the increasingly irrelevant Southern rump's lock on the party.

So, that AP story chimes nicely with this Americablog story:

I just heard from an impeccable source that there is serious concern on the Hill that conservative Democrats in the House will vote with the Republicans to strip any and all restrictions from the Iraq supplemental tomorrow, effectively giving Bush all the money he wants with no restrictions and no effort to hold either him or the Iraq government accountable for anything. I.e., they will vote to continue this war along the same disastrous course because they're too afraid to challenge George Bush and his failed leadership.

Fucking bedwetters.

Let me reiterate: This isn't some idle rumor. The concerns are coming from Hill sources themselves.

So my scenario is that the Blue Dogs and the Moderate Republicans are working together to betray Pelosi.

Cramer said "Show me something" to the Republicans, and the kabuki drama in the Solarium Room yesterday was their very public response.

And now it's up to the Blue Dogs to show the Republicans something. That would come with the votes on the supplemental.

Of course, since all the characters involved are as twisty as corkscrews, the Blue Dogs might betray the Republicans instead of Pelosi. We can always hope!

UPDATE Think Progress thinks it's a sign of increasing pressure on Bush from the Partei apparatus. I don't think that's cynical enough.

UPDATE Talk Left thinks its a Rovian operation to help the moderate Republicans in tough districts, by giving them cover from Petraeus, if he's acclaimed as Consul (or, alternatively, his white horse). Nothing, of course, would prevent the Blue Dogs from joining in a Rovian operation if it served their purposes. When the going gets tough, the tough get foily....

UPDATE Via The Amazing Froomkin, this assessment by a participant:

"ROBERTS: Congressman LaHood, what was the president's reaction to what you told him?

"LAHOOD: He listened very carefully. I think he was a little -- I don't know if surprised is the right word, probably maybe sobered.

If "sobered" is the word we want [snicker].

If you liked this post, buy the author some books.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Finding a bipartisan consensus for disaster

I think you read this about right.

I watched Tim Russert last night as he delivered his exclusive. It was a very odd performance: he repeatedly stumbled over the message he was panting to deliver. His ear must have been still warm from some whisperer's lips.

Nothing he reported explained his overexcitement, but your analysis just did. Thank you.

lambert's picture

Russert's warm ear...

That's an ugly picture, A.C. I really didn't need that this morning.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

dr sardonicus's picture

Today's proverb

It is hard to pull a car out of a ditch with a tow truck that has a flat tire.

...for the rest of us

Don't no don't now try to get yourself elected
If you do you had better cut your hair

Bipartisan "compromise"

Thank you. I thought I smelled a rat in Wednesday's charade and you just explained it. It's all just turned into bad theater.

Help the hamsters with their winter heating bill ...

… as they power the wheels that turn the servers at The Mighty Corrente Building. Please, won’t you help them keep their cages shiny?

No PayPal Account required! Give the hamsters immediate relief!

Or Subscribe to make a monthly payment!

Corrente is completely supported by contributions from readers. Thank you!

Download Citibank Plutonomy files

Part 1 [PDF]

Part 2 [PDF]

Good reading! Favorite quote: What could go wrong?
Beyond war, inflation, the end of the technology/productivity wave, and financial collapse, we think the most potent and short-term threat would be societies demanding a more ‘equitable’ share of wealth.

The 12 Word Platform

1. Medicare for All

2. End the Wars

3. Tax the Rich

4. A Jobs Guarantee

Senior fellows of The Mighty Corrente Building

Leah (CA), Lambert (PA/ME), RDF (??), BDBlue (DC), Hipparchia (FL), MsExPat (NY), letsgetitdone (DC), twig (LA), Tony Wikrent, (NC), jawbone (PA).

Corresponding fellows

danps.

Western Coordinator

coyotecreek

Correspondents

Health care reform: DCBlogger.

Fellows emeritus

mjs, Riggsveda, Tresy, Tom, hekebolos, chicagodyke, shystee, and Xenophon, Vastleft (MA), Sarah (TX).

Random term

Veal with Stockholm Syndrome. Extends Jane Hamsher's "veal pen" metaphor to include solidarity with the keepers' agenda, such as by dissing and marginalizing single-payer advocates in favor of the meaningless "public option." Coined by alert commenter michaelwb.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Americans United is dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.