What if Nancy Pelosi is right?

[ProfessorPlum]

We all know that Pelosi's arguments about "not having enough votes" to stop war funding is bogus. What she is implicitly saying is that she doesn't think it would be good for Congressional Democrats to stop war funding. Is she right? Most of the people here assume that if Congressional Democrats stopped war funding, the public would respond very positively, with approval ratings, money, etc.

But one thing that has proven true over and over again is that the Democrats cannot outsmart or stand up to the GOP's Outrage Machine. Anything fed into the Outrage Machine is used as a cudgel to exact ritual humiliation of the Democrats. They even have to apologize for speaking the truth! (See Durbin on the American Gulag, Stark on the President's amusement, etc.)

In order for ending war funding to be a good thing for congressional Democrats, they would have to do two things: cut the funds, and also outsmart the GOP's Outrage Machine. Since Nancy knows they could never pull off the second part, she knows that blocking war funding would be a bad thing for congressional Democrats. Thus she doesn't something which would be bad for herself.

See, it all makes sense.

this post is sarcasm, for the irony-impaired.

[Virginia Dare]

1. She appears intent on not feeding the smear machine...

I think the Stark thing had more to do with the ongoing negotiations for the SCHIP bill, which they are forcing a vote on today. They've done a tiny bit of tinkering and it has a good chance at passing by a veto proof margin, and it's far more than Bush wants. It's been a huge liability for a lot of repubs, and they are eager to make it go away.

Right or wrong in "our" eyes, I think Pelosi felt that Stark shouldn't be a distraction from this.

I think she views impeachment the same way. She is still intent on working with the repubs rather than fostering confrontation and resentment, getting as much as they conceivably can out of them through negotiation, not poisoning the well any more than it already is, and keeping the smear machine in check. It's obviously not a popular tactic among many here.

Another interesting point is that while she's been attacked here for holding the reins too tight, I read this morning in a very good article about the work that Henry Waxman is doing in the Washington Post, that Pelosi has basically given him Carte Blanche to do whatever he wants in terms investigation.

[Historic NY]

2. Pelosi allows Republicans to drive & shape..........

the Democrats agenda in Congress. She is too weak to stop them. Its time to use the rule to make them look like monkeys not the other way around. Armenia, Stark and a whole host of issues she has tackled contribute to the poor number this congress gets. WTF have they done.....not much.

[natrat]

3. perhaps but the stark thing leads me to believe she is just another run of the mill scum

[JDPriestly]

4. ProfessorPlum, you captured what Pelosi most likely is thinking

She is afraid that as soon as the Democrats take a strong stand on the war or surveillance or habeas corpus or any similar issue, the Republican hacks will go into high gear and, with the press and the sheer outrageous crassness of their arguments on their side, will get the general public behind them and back into the conservative fold.

In other words, she has no confidence that we will support Democrats in their hour of need. And maybe she is right. That is why Democrats want a larger and firmer majority before going out on what the press might characterize as a liberal limb. We have to work harder to explain our views to our families and friends.

[harun]

6. Summed up well

I think the plan will be to push through the reforms once a Dem president is in place and hopefully do that with a better Dem position in the House and Senate after the next election.

[Me.]

5. So That's Why Only Dems & Dem Groups

are threatened with censure? And why republicon bills that shouldn't are allowed to make it through to the floor. Looks like Rush has got them over a barrel, he's scarier than us.

[hedda_foil]

7. I think she also knows there are enough Blue Dogs and DLC in the caucus ...

I think she also knows there are more than enough Blue Dogs and DLC in the caucus (including Rahm and Hoyer no doubt) who would sign a Repub discharge petition in a New York minute and force the funding through whether she wants it or not. It's very unlikely the votes are there to keep the bill off the floor -- a discharge petition requires the signatures of a majority of members and they'd get it in record time. Not only would she be giving *co the ability to smear the Dems bigtime, but the funding bill would still be brought up and passed.