Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, has had a hard time admitting that the surge in Iraq has been reasonably successful. Sure, Iraq isn’t a success just yet, but the surge has improved daily life tremendously. But, she and her buddies were opposed to the surge from the get-go, saying that a surge would not accomplish anything, so she has to find a clever way to admit the obvious. She has now finally found such a way… Sadly, however, there’s nothing clever about it: (more…)

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are thinking about writing a letter - together with Howard Dean - instructing the Democratic super-delegates to get off the stick and pick a candidate already.  I hope they do just that.  Wouldn’t it be droll if Reid and Pelosi tried to bully the super-delegates into line and were told to stuff it? 

(more…)

There are days when I almost feel sorry for Nancy Pelosi. Not only has she turned out to be a miserable failure as a Speaker of the House and has helped to drive Congressional approval ratings to the point where more people approve of smallpox and lemon juice on papercuts than Congress, but she’s also stuck right in the middle of the Democratic Primary process. I can’t feel too sorry, though, because she got herself into the trouble she’s in right now.

(more…)

Politico takes time out from hatcheting candidates to cast a skeptical eye on changes in Capitol Hill eating options mandated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The results give insight into the rather peculiar and nanny-ish authoritarianism that lies just beneath the surface of the “progressive” program to force people to share their environmental ideologies. (more…)

So says Don Surber:

At the end of the year, the pacification of Iraq and the destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq have come despite the House Speaker. (more…)

Nancy Pelosi continues to give her fellow Democrats a severe headache. This time she said that Republicans “like war.” (more…)

I guess she likes flowers:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has spent $16,000 on flowers since taking office, one reason why she spent 63 percent more in her high-profile inaugural year than her low-key predecessor did last year.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) spent a little more than $3 million in the first nine months of 2007, records show, compared to the $1.8 million Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) spent during the same period in 2006.

$16,000 on flowers? What did she buy? An entire forest?

Sadly for Republicans, well for American taxpayers, Pelosi isn’t the only bigspender: “House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has increased spending 23 percent above what Pelosi spent when she held the same job.”

Bad news for Democrats:

Fueled by disappointment at the pace of change since Democrats assumed the majority on Capitol Hill, public approval of Congress has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

Just 27% of Americans now approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the poll found, down from 36% in January, when Democrats assumed control of the House and the Senate.

And 63% of Americans say that the new Democratic Congress is governing in a “business as usual” manner, rather than working to bring the fundamental change that party leaders promised after November’s midterm election.

The Democrats appear to be more busy playing political games, and launching partisan attacks than actually doing what they are supposed to do: legislate.

It is a classic case “say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.”

36% of those polled, approve of the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job (of House Speaker). “In contrast, 46% of Americans in the current poll said they approved of the way Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia handled the job after he led the GOP into the majority in 1994.”

Why the bad results you ask? It is simple: the liberal Democratic base isn’t happy.

A third of liberal Democrats, who constitute the party’s base, approve of the job Congress is doing; 58% disapprove, the poll found.

Martha Wilde, 81, a Democrat from Remer, Minn. worded it like this:

“They just haven’t seemed to have gathered things together the way they should,” said Martha Wilde, 81, a Democrat from Remer, Minn., who said she had been particularly disappointed in congressional Democrats’ lack of progress confronting the Bush administration over the war.

“I think they should force them more,” Wilde said.

Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman made clear that Pelosi cares a great deal what the base thinks (about her) by saying: “The American people are rightly frustrated with the ongoing war in Iraq, and Democrats will continue to work with Republicans to force the president to change direction in Iraq so our troops can come home and we can refocus our efforts on fighting terrorism.”

Let me rephrase that: “we will continue to do what we are doing: we will make a lot of noise but we won’t get anything done.”

Pelosi et al. made one major mistake: before the elections they made all kinds of promises what they would do once in power. Suddenly they, indeed, won and now they have to deliver. The progressive base does not want to hear excuses (namely that certain things cannot be done because a - it’s stupid; b- Bush can veto legislation he doesn’t like), they wants results.

If Pelosi would have been honest during the campaign, if she would have tried to appeal a bit less to the base, less rhetoric more reason and truth, she would not have the bad numbers she has today.

Patrick O’Connor reports for The Politico:

House Republicans have a fairly simple plan to reclaim the majority: Blame Nancy.

The National Republican Congressional Committee launches its first national advertising blitz Thursday with a drive to tie freshmen Democrats to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The GOP’s cash-strapped campaign arm will launch a mix of radio ads and automated phone calls targeting 18 freshman Democrats for allegedly marching in lockstep with the speaker, a California Democrat who is regularly depicted by Republicans as an out-of-touch liberal.

This modest campaign comes 17 months before the next election and signals the seats that Republicans are targeting in 2008. But it also marks an ambitious decision by the campaign committee to go after the speaker in an effort to unseat her most vulnerable members.

Lorie Byrd writes at Wizbang: “Democrats are fond of claiming a mandate as a result of the 2006 elections, but in reality they would not have won if not for recruiting moderate and semi-conservative Democrats to run in key districts. Those freshmen moderates did not run on the liberal agenda Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are now trying to push through Congress and this is one way to let voters know what their representatives are doing in Washington.”

Those Democrats would be wise to be, act and vote a bit independent-minded. If they want to keep their jobs, they’d better reach across the aisle, and, yes, even vote against legislation supported by Pelosi et al. They are Democrats, yes, but they are representing their constituents, not Pelosi.

On the other hand, Democrats shouldn’t be too afraid of the GOP either. The Republicans have their own weaknesses that can be exploited.

H/t Memeorandum.

It seems so:

Hours before the House approved a plan on Thursday to finance the Iraq war only through midsummer, President Bush offered his first public concession to try to resolve the impasse on war spending, acknowledging rising pressure from his own party and the public.

After a briefing at the Pentagon, Mr. Bush said he had instructed Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff, to reach “common ground” with lawmakers of both parties over setting firm goals, or benchmarks, to measure progress in Iraq. Mr. Bush had previously insisted that he wanted about $95 billion for the military with no strings attached.

“It makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward,” Mr. Bush said, even as he threatened to veto the House plan, approved on a 221-to-205 vote Thursday night, which would require him to seek approval in two months for the balance of the war money.

The Times adds: “Before the vote on Thursday, House Democrats demonstrated their opposition to continuing the war when 169 of them voted for a separate plan that would have required the withdrawal of American troops to begin in 90 days, with most forces out within another six months.”

It, luckily, failed, but “the plan attracted more support than anticipated” nonetheless: 255-171. One of the people who voted in favor of it: Nancy Pelosi.

Good, Pelosi supports a plan that would demand of Bush to start withdrawing troops immediately. We can now be sure: Pelosi does not care, at all, about the Iraqi people. Pelosi cares about Pelosi and she probably believed / believes that she needs the full support of the anti-war crowd.

Luckily, though, the horrific, stupid, ignorant, selfish and naive plan supported by Pelosi has no chance of succeeding.

On the other hand, Congress and Bush have to come to some sort of compromise. It seems that such a compromise is in the making. The question is whether Bush will agree to go as far as Congressional Democrats, and even Republicans, want him to go.

Bush does not want to pass this off to a new, especially not to a Democratic, president. This means that he has to reach some sort of compromise. It is as simple as that.

The Iraqi government will be held responsible for the (lack of) stability in Iraq, for the increase or decrease in sectarian violence, etc. Of course, this approach might, in the end, serve as a face saver for the US: “we’re not to blame, the Iraqi government isn’t doing what it’s supposed to do,” and that’ll be that.

Munaeem links to a very interesting article at the Jewish Journal about Nancy Pelosi’s father, Thomas D’Alesandro. This Roosevelt Democrat broke with Roosevelt on quite important issues: saving European Jews from the holocaust and the creation of the state of Israel:

Pelosi’s father, the late Rep. Thomas D’Alesandro Jr. of Maryland, was known as a Roosevelt Democrat. What is not widely known is that D’Alesandro broke ranks with President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the issues of rescuing Jews from Hitler and creating a Jewish state.

D’Alesandro was one of the congressional supporters of the Bergson Group, a maverick Jewish political action committee that challenged the Roosevelt administration’s policies on the Jewish refugee issue during the Holocaust and later lobbied against British control of Palestine.

The Bergson activists used unconventional tactics to draw attention to the plight of Europe’s Jews, including staging theatrical pageants, organizing a march by 400 rabbis to the White House and placing more than 200 full-page advertisements in newspapers around the country.

Some of those ads featured lists of celebrities, prominent intellectuals and members of Congress who supported the group — including D’Alesandro.

D’Alesandro’s involvement with the Bergson Group was remarkable because he was a Democrat who was choosing to support a group that was publicly challenging a Democratic president.

In the end, the Bergson Group saved the lives of 200,000 Jews and played an important role in the creation of the state of Israel. Luckily for D’Alessandro, Truman decided not to retaliate: if other Roosevelt Democrats had decided to turn against him, it is quite unlikely that he, D’Alessandro, was elected mayor of Baltimore in 1947.

Of course, that would also have meant that Nancy Pelosi might not have entered politics, but that is a small price to pay for all the great things D’Alessandro accomplished.

I was not aware of the achievements of Pelosi’s father, so this was a highly interesting read. Thanks for Munaeem for pointing it out.

George W. Bush still wants to do something about the immigration issue.

A recently leaked White House presentation, devised after weeks of closed-door meetings with Republican senators, suggests some hardening of Bush’s positions, however.

As spelled out in the presentation, which White House aides describe as ideas for debate, undocumented workers could apply for three-year work visas, renewable indefinitely at a cost of $3,500 each time. To get a green card that would make them legal permanent residents, they would have to return to their home countries, apply for reentry at a U.S. embassy or consulate, and pay a $10,000 fine.

In a new twist, more green cards would be made available to skilled workers by limiting visas for parents, children and siblings of U.S. citizens. Temporary workers could not bring their families into the country.

Key Democrats have said the plan would unacceptably split families while creating a permanent underclass of temporary workers with no prospects of fully participating in U.S. society. Their competing vision is the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act — or Strive Act, newly introduced in the House by Reps. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

The bill would make illegal immigrants who were in the country before June 1, 2006, eligible for legalization after a $500 fine, a security clearance and proof that they had been actively employed before that date. After six years, immigrants who learn English, stay crime-free and pay an additional $1,500 would be eligible for permanent residency and eventually citizenship. Under the bill, hundreds of thousands of guest workers could enter the United States each year to fill jobs that Americans do not want.

Democrats are very careful not to support Bush’s plan too easily: House speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that Bush first needs to get the support of 70 Republicans, before she’ll consider a vote. More:

In Midwestern and Southern districts with high unemployment and job fears, especially those experiencing their first influx of foreign workers, opposition to immigrant labor remains high. Because Democrats control Congress, labor union leaders are pressing their own concerns harder, opposing expansive guest-worker programs and demanding union wage rates for legalized workers — issues that could jeopardize crossover GOP support.

“It’s going to be very, very difficult” to pass an immigration bill, Yarmuth said.

And the new Democratic members of the House, don’t want to see a repetition of what they went through during the last elections: “Something like 90 percent of Republican ads ran on immigration. These new Dems don’t want to see that again”, as Jeff Flake points out (R-Ariz.).

It will be difficult for Bush to win this battle. It will be interesting to see how it goes. The pro-business part of the Republican Party probably supports Bush’s views on immigration, but social conservatives don’t.

More at Captain’s Quarters.

On yesterday’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Senator Joe Lieberman condemned Pelosi’s visit to Syria, saying it was “bad for the United States of America.”

LIEBERMAN: I respectfully and strongly disagree with Arlen Specter and with Nancy Pelosi. I believe her visit to Syria was a mistake, that it was bad for the United States of America and good for the Syrians. And I say this because Syria — we’re in a war. We’re in a war against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/01. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism.

BLITZER: But they had nothing to do with 9/11.

LIEBERMAN: They have — let me tell what you they have got to do with what we’re into now. The Bashar Assad Syrian government has allowed terrorists and arms to flow across its country into Iraq that are being used to kill Americans today.

Syria has been implicated in the assassination of a very strong, popular Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Syria is supporting Hezbollah which is trying to unseat our ally, Siniora, in Lebanon. Syria is supporting the terrorist group Hamas against our allies in the Fatah Palestinian movement and, of course, Israel. The administration, in all fairness — people in Washington should know, if they don’t know, that the administration has been trying in many ways, in diplomatic discussions with Syria since 9/11, to get Assad to change his behavior and he has not. When Nancy Pelosi goes there, she sends a message of disunity. She legitimizes the Syrian government.

You can watch a short video of (part of) the exchange at Hot Air.

As should be clear, I agree with Lieberman. Pelosi’s trip has proven to be a terrible mistake. She has not improved the situation in the Middle East, she has only created confusion.

H/t Memeorandum.

Michael Young writes for The Daily Star:

We can thank the US speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for having informed Syrian President Bashar Assad, from Beirut, that “the road to solving Lebanon’s problems passes through Damascus.” Now, of course, all we need to do is remind Pelosi that the spirit and letter of successive United Nations Security Council resolutions, as well as Saudi and Egyptian efforts in recent weeks, have been destined to ensure precisely the opposite: that Syria end its meddling in Lebanese affairs.

Pelosi embarked on a fool’s errand to Damascus this week, and among the issues she said she would raise with Assad - when she wasn’t on the Lady Hester Stanhope tour in the capital of imprisoned dissidents Aref Dalila, Michel Kilo, and Anwar Bunni - is “the role of Syria in supporting Hamas and Hizbullah.” What the speaker doesn’t seem to have realized is that if Syria is made an obligatory passage in American efforts to address the Lebanese crisis, then Hizbullah will only gain. Once Assad is re-anointed gatekeeper in Lebanon, he will have no incentive to concede anything, least of all to dilettantes like Pelosi, on an organization that would be Syria’s enforcer in Beirut if it could re-impose its hegemony over its smaller neighbor.

Michael’s conclusion:

erhaps Pelosi and other foreign officials will understand this simple equation one day, after again failing to persuade Assad to sell Hizbullah out. Unfortunately, foreign bigwigs come to town, their domestic calculations in hand; then they leave, and we’re left picking up the pieces.

And that’s really what this was all about, wasn’t it? Pelosi did what she did, not to help Lebanon, but to score points domestically. The sad reality of the situation is that Pelosi has made the situation worse by doing just about everything wrong.

She overreached tremendously.

More at Reason Magazine, Gateway Pundit and D.A. Ridgely.

Nancy Pelosi recently said that she “had relayed a message from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, to the effect that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria.” Syria responded that it’s ready for talks. There is but one little problem: Israel denies “that [it] relayed a message to Syria”.

In fact, Olmert’s office said that: “what was discussed with the House speaker did not include any change in Israel’s policy, as it has been presented to international parties involved in the matter.”

And, according to the prime minister’s office, Olmert told Pelosi that “Israel continued to regard Syria as ‘part of the axis of evil and a party encouraging terrorism in the entire Middle East’.”

I wonder, like Hot Air’s A.P., whether “she bungled the offer unintentionally, out of sheer, royal stupidity, or she didn’t bungle it at all and there’s simply been a miscommunication somewhere.”

This is quite unbelievable. I am not sure what to think of it. Miscommunication, stupidity… intentional?

Ed Morrissey comments: and this is exactly why foreign policy belongs in the executive branch.

I believe that Pelosi should never have traveled to the Mideast, and especially not if she wants to do more than just chitchat. This is none of her business. If Israel wants to give a message to Syria, it would do so through the President of the U.S. or, more likely, its secretary of state.

This is truly a sign of major incompetence.

The Daily Journal reports that the Democratic controlled House voted in favor of a binding “war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements.”

Nany Pelosi said that “the American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war. The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.”

Bush responded as expected: “A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resources they need to do their job.

“These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen.”

CNN notes that two Republicans voted in favor of the bill, namely Walter Jones of North Carolina and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland.

Of course the bill won’t pass in Senate, at least, again as CNN notes, not with the deadline intact. And… if the bill passes in Senate Bush will - quite simply - veto it.

It’s merely a symbolic vote. What will the Democrats do once Senate rejects the bill?

That’s the interesting question now.