I am convinced Nancy Pelosi is a politician like none other I have seen. While politicians are generally regarded by the public as people of low moral character interested only in their own personal gains, they are accepted as being necessary evils. While both President Bush and Congress as a whole are experiencing record low approval ratings, most politicians will have at least a small group of supporters who truly believe they are the best person for the job.

Nancy Pelosi on the other hand has managed to do something which is very rare in the world of politics, and that is to gain the ire of both liberals and conservatives in a single move. The Politico is reporting that Pelosi intends to push a $200 billion war funding bill through the House, thus irritating her anti-war base. The methods she is using to do this have also had the added affect of irritating House Republicans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is about to lead her party into a major showdown over Iraq funding by violating two Democratic campaign pledges in one fell swoop.
To the critics, whether anti-war activists or House Republicans, Pelosi has made her feelings clear: Get over it.

This week’s maneuvering over a $200 billion war spending bill has revealed Pelosi self-confidently playing what she believes — with increasing evidence — is a strong hand.
Strong enough that she is expected to break one promise — her 2006 pledge for a more open and inclusive committee process — by circumventing the powerful House Appropriations Committee on the Iraq bill.

And when the final Iraq bill reaches the president’s desk, any troop withdrawal conditions are likely to be gone from the legislation. That is another 2006 pledge that has fallen by the wayside.

Broken promises are nothing new in politics, in fact they have become somewhat of a cliché. In most instances political promises are broken due to unrealistic goals, or unforeseen events. In other instances political promises are broken solely for the opportunity of political gain. Ed Morrissey believes this is the latter:

The Politico piece my Martin Kady misses the one crucial point in its focus on process: the Democrats do not want a repeat of 2007’s debate on Iraq. At its height, it produced a declaration of defeat from Democratic leadership on the floor of the Senate, and it also produced the spectacle of Democrats and their allies calling a uniformed commander a traitor and a liar during his testimony to Congress. After events proved General David Petraeus correct, the Democrats have tried hard to avoid getting exposed as defeatists and hysterics again.

The anti-war groups are putting their best face on this about-face. MoveOn says that Democrats have no choice but to capitulate on the war, despite having a majority, but they never explain why. The truth is that a precipitous withdrawal has never been a popular position, and it has grown even less so over the last year. Pelosi and Harry Reid want to quietly bury Iraq war funding now so that they can avoid exposure as defeatists in the final weeks before the fall elections.

What Ed says makes allot of sense, and is most likely the sole reason Pelosi is pushing this bill forward. She has not changed her position on the war in Iraq, still under the impression we should not be there and all troops should be withdrawn. The only reason for her to push this bill forward without attempting to attach any withdrawal provisions as she has done in the past is because she is hoping to limit the debate, thereby making it a non issue during the general election in November.

Ironically, Democrats have been arguing for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq for two primary reasons, the first being the cost associated with it, the second being the deaths of American soldiers. It appears that during an election year, neither is of importance to Democrats.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Congress, Election 2008, Features, Iran, Liberals, Politics