"What to do, what to do!" The Hill
Money quote: “It’s the same old thing: We’re too worried about being labeling(sic) soft on national security,”
__________________________________
Dems’ $87B rift tests Pelosi
Caucus wants to know how she will vote on Iraq
By Hans Nichols
House Democrats are girding for a divisive debate this week over the $86.8 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq, with many lawmakers impatient to know which way Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will vote.
Pelosi’s handling of what some lawmakers say is the first real test of her leadership is receiving mixed reviews in the Democratic caucus.
The party leadership is not taking an official position on the bill, which will expose a deep divide on the policies and politics of national security.
“There continues to be a division in the party,” said Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas). “It hasn’t gone away.”
Pelosi has allotted ample time, say lawmakers, for them to air their views and persuade colleagues in caucus meetings over the last several weeks.
“The sentiment in the caucus is divided, but Nancy is doing the best job that she can to listen to all points of view, as good a job as she can under the circumstances,” Frost said.
But some lawmakers who want more forceful opposition from their leadership to the Bush administration are confused by what they regard as a disconnect between Pelosi’s undeclared position and her fiery rhetoric.
They note that the minority leader has spoken forcefully and eloquently, perhaps more so than any of her colleagues, about what she sees as flaws in the Bush administration prosecution of the peace in a post-conflict Iraq.
But at each meeting — and after her much-praised and impassioned oratory — she does not indicate how she eventually will vote on the spending request, holding out the possibility that she will support final passage of a Republican bill that at present is nearly unchanged from the White House draft.
“She hasn’t made a decision on how she’ll vote,” said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly.
One Democratic lawmaker described Pelosi’s position as a “halfway mark” from the one staked out by her predecessor, Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), a year ago.
Gephardt repeatedly made the case for why Democrats should support the war resolution, and while he did not impose an official position on the vote, his advocacy inflamed many rank-and-file Democrats who felt he was buckling to political pressure from the White House.
Pelosi’s reluctance to declare her formal opposition is rankling a minority faction of liberal lawmakers. They worry that Pelosi’s less-than-clear position will induce some wavering Democrats to support a proposal they would otherwise oppose.
“It’s the same old thing: We’re too worried about being labeling soft on national security,” said another Democratic lawmaker who plans to vote against the resolution.
“This is how she’ll be defined. Look at how Gephardt was defined. It’s the same as Gephardt. Instead of leading, she’s trying to build consensus,” the lawmaker continued, speculating that Pelosi will eventually vote in favor of whatever supplemental reaches the floor, regardless of the lack of Democratic input in crafting
it.
“The more liberal members are disappointed, but Nancy has an obligation to the entire caucus and to the country,” said Frost, who also doesn’t know how Pelosi will vote.
Not all Democrats who plan to vote against the proposal are critical of Pelosi’s management of the debate.
“She’s doing this differently than Gephardt. There’s more listening, in formal setting, with time set aside for vigorous discussion,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).
“I, for one, will not be an enabler to an administration that clearly cannot be trusted with our treasury, our lives and those of the Iraqi people,” she added.
Regardless of Pelosi’s final decision, Democrats who oppose the supplemental are confident that a substantial number of Democrats will vote against final passage, with the goal of reaching beyond the 133 lawmakers who voted against last
October’s resolution.
“Fool me once, Mr. President, shame on you. Fool me twice, Mr. President, shame on me,” said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.).
However, a Democratic leadership aide said it is unlikely that more than 133 Democrats will vote against final passage, estimating a number closer to 100.
As for lawmakers who believe Pelosi eventually will support the final bill, the aide said: “That’s flat wrong, I am not sure she has decided how she is going to vote yet.”
The aide continued: “Based on her body language, her rhetoric, if members had to infer something at this point, it would be that she’s leaning against voting for the supplemental.”
Democrats opposed to the supplemental note that Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who voted in favor of last year’s resolution, has been arguing in caucus meetings why Democrats need to challenge President Bush by voting against the supplemental.
“I don’t think that Jane Harman will have much of an effect on members,” said the leadership aide.
In an indication that this year’s final tally will yield greater support from Democrats than last October’s war vote, Reps. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) and Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) voted for the supplemental in the appropriations committee markup last week. They voted against the war resolution last year.
thehill.com |
