Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Pelosi camp says WaPo story "not true"
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, May 03, 2007

That per Greg Sargent who says:
Check this out — the offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.

Pelosi just went before the Democratic caucus and informed them that the story's false, a Pelosi aide tells me. WaPo is standing by the story, and the lead writer of the Post piece, Jonathan Weisman, told me that leadership aides told him that the withdrawal language had to go. But the WaPo story goes further than that, saying explicitly that Dems have already "backed down" and offered the concession of removing the withdrawal language. Those aren't the same thing.

Why report that Dems have already caved in the negotiations if they haven't yet?
Well maybe that was then and this is "after the base found out about it". Or said another way, maybe that "Roots Action Alert" is having an effect.

Sargent goes on:
I just emailed a Pelosi aide to ask whether the story was true. Here's the reply:
Not true. Speaker just told members of the Democratic caucus that the story is totally untrue. We are still deciding what provisions the new bill will include.
Meanwhile, a source in Reid's office tells me the following: "No decisions have been made on this yet. No options have been ruled in or out." It's also worth noting that the New York Times story on this today doesn't say that the Dems have officially offered this concession, either.
Of course, as stated in the WaPo piece, there's a difference between "podium" talk and "hallway" talk. One has to wonder if the denials aren't "podium" talk meant to mollify the base while they, in fact, drop the timeline demands.

Sargent also emailed one of the authors of the WaPo story:
So what happened here? I just emailed Post reporter Weisman and requested comment. His answer:
That is very interesting, since I was told in no uncertain terms by one of her aides that the withdrawal dates had to go, since they could not stand by language Bush would never sign. That was cofirmed by another senior leadership aide and two members of the leadership.

I can say with no reluctance whatsoever that we stand by the story. By the way, nobody has contacted me about it. That should tell you a lot.
Yeah, actually it should.

Sargent concludes:
This all gives rise to a bigger question: Why is much of the media's coverage of this focussed on the Democratic dilemma the veto creates, while so little of it is focussed on the fact that Republicans, too, are in a bind, are trapped between public opinion and their unyielding President, and are going to have to make concessions towards a compromise?
Well yeah, they are, but everyone and his brother knows that compromise won't include timelines. So it ends up back in the Democrats lap and because they couldn't override the veto, it is their dilemma.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Nuh-Uh McQ it’s the Republicans problem because of Shrub...EVERYTHING is the Rethuglicans problem...even when in the minority.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
This is sooooooooooo cool.
Nutroots can steer them right straight into the dustbin of history.

Tip O’Neil and the old boys wouldn’t have let a bunch of jumped up internet whiners tell them what to do.



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
As Instapundit put it,
Now the Democrats are denying this report and vowing No Surrender! Er, to Bush. But now they’ve opened a second front against the Washington Post.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Another leftie blog does the Oliver Willis thing and ignores “question two”:
”Republicans, too, are in a bind, are trapped between public opinion and their unyielding President, and are going to have to make concessions towards a compromise?”
Only if they live in Narrative World and get their information from leftie blogs. In the real world, a majority of citizens apparently believe that no compromise on this point by the Republicans is appropriate behavior (see “question two”). In Liberal Lalaland, “question two” does not exist; therefore the Horse’s Mouth makes a ‘valid’ point for his liberal readers.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Why is much of the media’s coverage of this focussed on the Democratic dilemma the veto creates,
The Democrats are responsible for this fiasco so they get the spotlight. Republicans have their problems, but to the general public this looks like the Dems are sticking it to the troops for political gain.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
Oh, NOW I see the problem. One simply has to cross over into Narrative World and you can clearly see what Representative Pelosi is up against. In Narrative World "question two" doesn’t exist. Therefore, liberals think that 65% of America wants timelines to be included in the new bill. Only stupid Bush wants them out of the bill. Well, he and the remaining 35% of the poll-takers, but who the hell cares about minorities?

So liberals are all up in arms because Representative Pelosi is caving to Bush when they believe from reading leftie blogs that 65% of America disagrees and wants timelines in the new bill.

If we want to understand the points being discussed, we need two colors of ink when we hold discussions that cross back and forth into the two worlds like this, red for the real world and blue for... Oh wait, we have been having such discussions all along; we maybe just didn’t realize it.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider