Today took a strange turn.
I opened memeorandum to find multiple stories on the GOP's meeting with the President, headlines like War Support starting to crumble, Bush meets with wavering Republicans, etc.... then from the strangest source, a far left liberal blog, no less, I see this headline "BREAKING: Conservative Dems expected to vote with GOP to give Bush unfettered blank check on Iraq tomorrow ".....
HUH????
So, even knowing it was a far left liberal blog, or perhaps because of it, I just had to click to see where the joke was, but John, the writer was serious.
It's time to replace some conservative Democrats in Washington, DC. 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.
Let me reiterate: This isn't some idle rumor. The concerns are coming from Hill sources themselves.
Yes, while the Republican leaders of the House and Senate are publicly claiming that they won't give Bush a blank check, they're maneuvering behind the scenes to do just that. And while Republican members of Congress are supposedly laying down the law for Bush in private meetings, on the House floor they're going to give Bush everything he wants and needs to continue the war indefinitely.
Now, I am still waiting to see what actually happens, but I remember right after the 2006 elections, saying here on this blog, that the Democrats were going to have a difficult time with the Blue Dog Democrats, is this what is happening? Even more recently I outlined some major differences between the Blue Dog Democrats and the Yellow Democrats.
Are the Blue Dogs tired of being seen as weak on National Security? Are the Blue Dogs tired of being linked with the Out of Iraq Caucus that keeps trying to surrender? Are the Blue Dogs worried about the progress that has been seen coming out of Iraq and how it would make them look if they continue to back the retreat in defeat bills? Are the Blue Dogs simply doing what they think is best or is all of this some misunderstanding from AmericaBlog?
Is it just possible that the Blue Dog's supporters made their voices heard after the last fiasco with the vetoed supplemental bill, letting them know they didn't vote for them to "rubber stamp" Pelosi's insanity and they would not vote them in again if they continued to do so?
So, after these questions popped into my head, I started hunting (Gotta love search engines).
Like I said, I am reserving judgement on how true these stories are, but there are some interesting reactions.
Starting with the left, Contentewire seems to think this is all some elaborate conspiracy between Blue Dog Democrats and Moderate Republicans and that all the news stories about this GOP meeting with the President is all a part of this conspiracy to betray Pelosi. (A little Twilight Zone music here)
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.
Then Talk Left actually includes Rove into the possible conspiracy theory:
If this is true, I hope that there will be a revolt in the Democratic Party. The crappy House Supplemental had 218 votes. A number of Blue Dogs voted against it, including Marshall, Barrow and others. Who else is going to break?
Do you think maybe Rove knew this when he allowed the "moderate" Republicans top leak their meeting with Bush? To cover for yet another rubberstamping of Mr. 28%?
Work For Change also weighs in:
We will see today just how far these Blank Check Democrats are willing to go in undermining their own party and the will of the American public. But we will also see just how far Democratic leaders are willing to go in making their anti-war rhetoric legislative reality. Because remember - these fights do not happen in a vacuum, as much as the Washington pundit class would like us to believe they do. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and senior Democrats have many levers of power at their disposal, including committee assignments and re-election fundraising and support for primary challengers. Whether Pelosi uses these levers - and whether rank-and-file Democrats demand she uses these levers - will tell us a lot not only about the Democratic Party's commitment to ending the war, but about it's commitment to all the other promises America was given in exchange for its votes in 2006.
That one in particular amused me because that was exactly what Pelosi tried to do with the Murtha/Hoyer vote and she got her ass handed to her by her own caucus.
That alone should have taught people like Work for Change that threatening the Blue Dog Democrats will, indeed, backfire, yet they suggest doing the same thing and expect a different result?
I told you things get weirder and weirder.....
From the right, we have Strata-Sphere that thinks the Blue Dogs are trying to detach themselves from the Out of Iraq Caucus, fast.
Why do you think moderate/conservative Dems are shifting abruptly? As I have been posting for a month now, watch Diyala Province. The SurrenderMedia screwed the Surrendercrats big time by NOT publicizing the successes of Anbar Province. Outside of a few of us bloggers paying close attention, the public is blissfully unaware of the situation there. And with Diyala shifting to the same model as Anbar, the public can now be presented with story after story of successful progress. The SurrenderMedia sat on the news, letting it build up energy for the impact when it breaks. We will be going from “the war is lost” to ” amazing progress is made in the stronghold of al Qaeda in Iraq”….
If I was a moderate I would run for the hills too!
Good point there because those of us that actually DO read the news releases showing us the progress that is being made, the letters/emails from our ground troops telling us of the successes they are seeing, it is quite possible the Blue Dogs are the one group of Democrats not willing to ignore anything they don't agree with, but actually do consider the conditions on the ground while making their choices on what to vote for instead of just blindly opposing anything Bush proposes.
I guess we wait to see how the vote turns out and the roll call of who voted for what, but all of this seems very strange.
Expect updates, and they are up here..
.
