"Rachel Maddow interviews House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi" - full version (video)

The Maddow Blog, video (28:03).

Pelosi: "We Will Continue Discussions With Obama And Dem Caucus On Tax Cuts"

TPM:

"The tax proposal announced by the President clearly presents the differences between Democrats and Republicans," Pelosi says. "Any provision must be judged by two criteria: does it create jobs to grow our economy and does it add to the deficit?"

Pelosi then compares and contrasts the Dem proposals on middle-class tax cuts, saying that "Republican demands would provide tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires, fail to create jobs and increase the deficit."

Take it as another sign that the White House could have a tough road ahead to bring House Democrats on board. MORE...

"Dems to Obama: Let's NOT cave on Bush tax cuts!" (with video)

Greg Sargent:

Carrie Budoff-Brown reports that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are privately urging the President to stake out a tough and coherent position on the tax cuts. Other Dems are telling Obama not to waver publicly or telegraph weakness.

While that's a good message, it really is dispiriting to see this same old B.S., where Congressional Dems try to preemptively blame their own lack of spine on Obama's alleged failure to provide them with marching orders. Yes, the White House is important in setting direction and tone. But if Pelosi and Reid want a vote on extending just the middle class cuts, they can simply hold one. If you want a tough and coherent position in this fight -- as Pelosi surely does -- adopt one! Not rocket science.

Howie P.S.: Alan Grayson makes it clear, video (05:25), why the extension of the Bush tax cuts to the top 2% is a bad idea.

Even More Post Midterm News and Views

"Grayson: Democratic ‘appeasement’ cost us the election" (Raw Story):

Alan Grayson, the defeated Democratic congressman of "die quickly" fame, went on the offensive Thursday, telling reporters that the Democrats' "appeasement" of Republicans cost them the election.

In an appearance on MSNBC and an interview with Salon.com, Grayson argued that the "enthusiasm gap" that prompted millions of liberal voters to stay home Tuesday happened because the Obama administration and congressional Democrats did not fight hard enough for progressive values. MORE...

"Blue Dogs Dumped" (Joe Klein):

Normally, I don't have much patience for the whining on the left about the Blue Dog democrats--who were sliced in half on Tuesday, losing at least 28 of their 54 seats. When they lose, the Democrats lose control of the Congress. This year, however, I do feel that there is an argument that, to an extent, the Dogs brought this on themselves by being penny-wise, dogpound-foolish. The argument goes like this: a larger stimulus package might have helped the economy recover at a faster clip, but the Dogs opposed it on fiscal responsibility grounds. A second argument: the public really has had it with Wall Street, but the Dogs helped water down the financial regulatory bill, gutting the too-big-to-fail provisions. There is real merit to both points. MORE...

"Howard Dean Rules Out 2012 Bid" (Wall Street Journal):

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the unofficial general of the liberal movement, has ruled out posing a primary challenge to President Barack Obama, according to his office.

Mr. Dean, who energized the left with his unsuccessful 2004 presidential bid, has been a frequent critic of the president – most notably for the White House’s decision not to push for a so-called public option on the health care legislation. MORE...

"In Feingold’s Loss, Independents Turn on One of Their Own" (NY Times)

The irony was lost on no one. Senator Russ Feingold, a liberal with a fierce streak of independence who crusaded against the influence of money in politics, was toppled Tuesday in a campaign awash in the kind of unregulated cash he had struggled to keep out of the system.

And in a poignant twist, the loss came, in part, because independents flocked to his opponent, despite Mr. Feingold’s record of one maverick vote after another.

He was the sole senator to oppose the USA Patriot Act after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. He also broke with President Obama on several occasions, opposing the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, the bailing out of financial institutions in 2008 and the regulation of Wall Street this year, saying the restrictions did not go far enough.

Most prominently, he battled his colleagues to overhaul the campaign finance system; the resulting law, passed in 2002, bore his name and that of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican (who won re-election Tuesday). MORE...

"Nancy Pelosi, undone by her own success" (Eugene Robinson):

Pelosi did what was right for the country, and what's right isn't always what's popular. Democrats may decide they need a less-polarizing figure as minority leader; if they do, well, that's politics. But I'd love to see her stay in the Democratic leadership - and I'm betting that eventually she'd find a way to take back the gavel that she pounds with such righteous authority. MORE...

"Rich Media, Poor Democracy" (Amy Goodman):

As the 2010 elections come to a close, the biggest winner of all remains undeclared: the broadcasters. The biggest loser: democracy. These were the most expensive midterm elections in U.S. history, costing close to $4 billion, $3 billion of which went to advertising. What if ad time were free? We hear no debate about this, because the media corporations are making such a killing by selling campaign ads. Yet the broadcasters are using public airwaves.

I am reminded of the 1999 book by media scholar Robert McChesney, “Rich Media, Poor Democracy.” In it, he writes, “Broadcasters have little incentive to cover candidates, because it is in their interest to force them to publicize their campaigns.” MORE...

Pelosi Implores Dems On Tax Cuts: 'Who Do You Stand With?'

TPMDC:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi tonight implored House Democrats in a private meeting to consider a pre-election vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class while letting those for the rich expire, framing the debate in partisan terms.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee told TPM after the caucus that Pelosi ended the meeting with a "resounding" and impassioned speech that fired up the Democrats and might even have brought more on board for a vote.

"She made it clear it's a black and white issue of who do you stand with," Lee told TPM. "It's the middle class and they need to know we are pushing for them. We have to say it over and over again. They've gotta see it, smell it, sense it, taste it." MORE...

"Pelosi Throws a Bone to Blue Dogs"

Beth Marlowe (The Plum Line):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to make sure Blue Dogs vote for health-care reform.

With what seemed like half the House crowded behind her at the podium, Pelosi announced the bill that will be debated on the House floor would include a public option, but a version more acceptable to the moderate Democrats. The full text of the bill is here.

Why? Pelosi needed their votes.

As our Greg Sargent first reported, Pelosi had barely 200 of the 218 votes she’d need for a more “robust” public option.

That “robust” public option was what progressives would have preferred . It would have paid doctors and hospitals based on Medicare reimbursement rates, which are the lowest in the industry. Instead, Pelosi chose to include a public option in which the government would have to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, which means they’ll end up paying them more than with the “robust” option.

It’s the outcome Blue Dogs wanted, especially those from rural areas. They said Medicare, which pays hospitals based on cost-of-living in their area, was already reimbursing doctors and hospitals far too little, and they worried that rural hospitals would not survive if the public option paid at Medicare rates.

This will make it harder for moderate Democrats to vote against the bill, and Pelosi needs only a handful of the 56 Blue Dogs on board to get a bill through the House.

Three from "The Hill" on Pelosi, Reid and Obama

"Dem campaign anxiety: Vulnerables say they lack cover from Pelosi."

Between a tough vote on a climate change bill that many don’t expect to become law and a leftward push on healthcare legislation, Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) critics within her caucus say she’s left the so-called “majority makers” exposed.

“She keeps trying to push an unpopular package,” said Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), a centrist Blue Dog Democrat, referring to healthcare. “I think it’s fair to say they were better at it before.”

"Reid picks his battles on health."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is keeping a brutal fight with the insurance industry out of the broader healthcare debate, mindful that including it could sink President Barack Obama’s signature domestic priority.

Reid (D-Nev.), who will play a key role crafting the final Senate healthcare overhaul in the next few weeks, is excluding a proposal to repeal a loophole that exempts health insurance companies from federal antitrust laws.

"The stakes for Obama."

So we have a president who is generally liked but who is not thought to have accomplished much yet. His major achievement, economic stimulus, is not given credit for working. There is little confidence his healthcare plan will improve the quality of care Americans receive. He faces tough fights ahead over energy policy and financial reform. The president needs to win one, and his only shot is healthcare. He needs something that looks like reform to provide some policy heft to his general popularity and give him some leverage to deal other critical issues. Congressional Democrats need to set aside their internal bickering and settle on a simple package that gives Americans what they really want: insurance reform that guarantees coverage no matter pre-existing conditions, coverage that is affordable and coverage you can keep if you change or lose your job. Americans say that’s what they want, and if the president gives it to them, he’ll earn their confidence as well as their affection.

"Pelosi’s Toothless ‘Commission’"

Joe Conason:

Very soon, congressional leaders are expected to announce the creation of a new commission to investigate the causes of America’s crippling financial disaster. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that this investigative panel will be modeled on the legendary “Pecora Commission,” which held a series of hearings on Capitol Hill in 1933 that arraigned the nation’s biggest bankers and stock swindlers before an angry and suffering people. Named for Ferdinand Pecora, the cigar-chomping New York prosecutor who oversaw the proceedings, those confrontations mobilized public support for the financial reforms of the New Deal—which curbed the excesses of Wall Street’s overclass until a decade ago when the reforms were undone.

But unless the speaker and her colleagues summon much greater courage than they have displayed to date, any comparisons to the Pecora investigation will only highlight the failure of the Democrats to live up to their heritage. The way to begin to understand that incipient disappointment is with a short history lesson, and the way to start that lesson is to note that the Pecora “commission” was not really a commission at all, in the sense that we have come to understand that term—meaning an excuse for politicians to avoid their responsibilities by palming them off on a group of unelected appointees.

No, the Pecora commission was nothing like that. The so-called commission was in fact the Senate Banking and Currency Committee itself, which under Republican leadership had undertaken a desultory investigation of the 1929 Crash and the onset of the Great Depression, an investigation that had dragged on for a year or so without much progress. That changed with the election of 1932, which sent Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the White House and gave control of the United States Senate, including the Banking Committee, to the Democrats. In January 1933, Pecora was appointed to write up the weak and incomplete findings of his three predecessors—but the Senate Democrats, with the encouragement of the new president, encouraged him to continue and extend the committee’s investigation.

Armed with full subpoena power, Pecora summoned many of the nation’s most important bankers, brokers and financial operators to the witness table, including J.P. Morgan II, where they endured his harsh and sometimes humiliating public examination. When Morgan confessed that he and many of his partners in the most powerful investment bank routinely paid no income taxes, the furious reaction of the public armed FDR with the political power to enforce reforms, despite the bitter opposition of the bankers. Tax avoidance by the wealthiest men on Wall Street was merely a tantalizing bagatelle in the trove of abuses uncovered by Pecora, whose findings ranged from the underwriting of bad securities to pay off unsound loans (which may sound familiar) to the inflation of banking stocks through deceptive practices (which may sound familiar, too).

What Pelosi and her colleagues appear to be preparing, with the apparent assent of President Obama, is much weaker stuff. She has said that we need to find out what really happened to the nation’s finances in order “to make sure something like this never happens again.” But if the stakes are so high, why should this grave responsibility be turned over to retired politicians, former federal appointees and academics, as now seems most likely? Reuters has reported that the new commission’s members will probably include former Sens. Fred Thompson, Jake Garn and Bob Graham, along with former Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Brooksley Born (the most impressive name floated so far) and Alex Pollock, a conservative economist from the American Enterprise Institute. Is anyone yawning yet?

By consigning this historic investigation to an unelected panel, the congressional Democrats are running away from the mission of change that they were elected to fulfill—and the president who popularized that message is implicated in that error as well. What the nation needs now is a serious investigation, backed by the full authority of a joint congressional committee and spearheaded by a professional prosecutor like the brilliant Pecora—not a cowardly evasion and a mush-mouthed “bipartisan” report.

Climate change: "Chaos and arm-twisting gives Nancy Pelosi a major win"

Politico:

After lawmakers had devoured the last of the Kalua Pig at last Thursday night’s White House Luau, Nancy Pelosi summoned her team back to the Capitol — to ensure the climate change bill wasn’t the next thing roasted on the spit.

Pelosi and her top lieutenants would spend the next four hours whipping, cajoling, begging and browbeating undecided Democrats — and triple-checking their whip lists to decide who was a solid “yes” and who was prevaricating on the cap-and-trade legislation.

Yet no matter how many calls they made — or how many times they checked and rechecked their list — Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) kept coming up between 12 and 20 votes short of the 216 votes needed to win.

“We didn’t have the votes — and we had to have this vote,” said a leadership aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This was the big one for us. [Pelosi] staked her prestige on this one. ... This was her flagship issue, and this was a flagship vote for us.”

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passed by only 219-212, after an epic day replete with Republican ambushes, petty betrayals, hastily rearranged flights and disappearing acts.

Yet for all the apparent chaos, the action was commanded by a House speaker maneuvering with the urgency of someone who knew her reputation was on the line.

Despite Republican promises to punish battleground state Democrats for supporting a “cap and tax” plan, Pelosi and her fractious caucus passed their most serious test to date.

And whatever the fallout, aides say that both Pelosi and President Barack Obama now know that their majority can hold together — barely — when placed under withering pressure — which may bode well for the equally arduous trials on health care reform.

At the end of it all, Pelosi, who floated in and out of the House cloakroom all day, impossible to miss in an arctic-white linen pantsuit, gambled big and pulled off one of the most important legislative victories of her career, a win she views as a personal vindication, according to those close to the San Francisco Democrat.

“There’s no question about it,” Clyburn said after the vote. “She went back to her whipping days of old. She is an incredibly good whip. I’m trying to learn from her every day.”

Despite the most coordinated push yet between Democrats on the Hill and the Obama White House, the outcome was not certain until the very end, according to two dozen aides and members of Congress interviewed by POLITICO.

“It was really never a solid [216],” one person said afterward.

Party leaders agreed to bring the bill to the floor during a meeting Monday night, even though some of the members present had reservations about forcing vulnerable Democrats to cast votes on a package that may not go anywhere in the Senate.

In the days leading up the vote, the number of Democratic “yes” votes was locked at 200, according to people familiar with the tally. Every time they’d pick up one vote, another would slip. Democratic leaders needed a cushion to help protect the most vulnerable among them, and they didn’t have it.

As the frustration grew, an aide joked in one meeting that White House staff should give fence-sitters the same colored leis so that the president and his Cabinet secretaries would know who to buttonhole. The desperation was such that others in the room paused for a split second to consider the joke before abandoning it as a logistical impossibility.

During the luau, Clyburn set up shop in the Oval Office with Obama to meet with wavering Democrats, like freshmen Reps. Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland and Eric Massa of New York. Members of Clyburn’s whip team patrolled the White House lawn, cornering colleagues and making the case for the bill.

As the week wore on, Pelosi was directing former Vice President Al Gore whom to call, but everyone decided late Wednesday night that the list of undecided members was small enough that he should stay in Nashville, Tenn., to make calls.

On the day of the vote, the bleary-eyed tag team of Pelosi and Clyburn camped out in the cloakroom, just off the House floor, for nearly three hours.

One of Pelosi’s first targets was Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), a key fence-sitter who wanted more money generated from the carbon trading to be directed to the research and development of green technology.

Pelosi talked to him again and again, but he wouldn’t budge. Her message to him was the same as it was to others: It wasn’t worth voting against the bill because of what wasn’t in it.

According to witnesses, Pelosi perched herself on the arm of Holt’s chair and went nose to nose with him for a half-hour warning him that his no vote could scuttle the entire climate change effort — and that liberals would have another chance to make their case once the bill came back from the Senate.

Around 2 o’clock, he became a “yes.”

Next up was Austin, Texas, liberal Rep. Lloyd Doggett, who had seemed to be leaning toward the bill during a Thursday night visit with Obama in the Oval Office — but then infuriated the White House midday Friday by declaring the measure too weak on polluters to win his vote.

An exasperated White House staffer told POLITICO it was “stunning that he would ignore the wishes not just of his president but of his constituents and the country.”

Then Pelosi began working Doggett as the two stood in the back of the chamber near the railing, making the same perfect-is-enemy-of-the-good argument she had used against Holt. Doggett ended up voting “yes.”During the vote, Washington Rep. Jay Inslee, one of the taller members of the House, guarded the doors on the floor leading out to the Speaker’s Lobby, warning members not to leave the floor in case anyone needed to switch his or her vote. But that didn’t stop some Democrats, like Colorado Rep. John Salazar, from voting no early and sneaking out to avoid getting pressured by party leaders.

Leadership aides say Texas Rep. Ciro Rodriguez promised Pelosi he’d vote yes, but voted no and sprinted from the chamber. California Rep. Xavier Becerra tried unsuccessfully to flag him on his cell phone — and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) bounded into the ornate Speaker’s Lobby off the floor shouting, “Rodriguez! Rodriguez!” as puzzled reporters looked on.

Pelosi forced members to postpone their trips abroad to stay in town for the vote, aides familiar with the situation said. At one point, she even promised to escort one member out to the airport in her motorcade to catch an early flight — as House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stalled the proceedings with an hourlong reading from the 300-page manager’s amendment.

California Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a master of floor procedure who left the House on Friday to take a top job at the State Department, may have made the biggest personal sacrifice by postponing a dinner the night before her wedding to preside over the debate — her last as a member of Congress.

When another Californian, Rep. Joe Baca, declared himself undeclared, Pelosi and her whip team surrounded him — and burst out into applause when he cast one of the decisive “yes” votes, according to an eyewitness.

Members who wanted to be spared of the Pelosi treatment — slinked in and out of the chamber hoping the speaker wouldn’t notice them.

Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.) — another progressive who didn’t think the bill was strong enough — was an especially elusive target, according to leadership aides. Pelosi’s attempts to contact Filner early Friday weren’t successful, staffers say, but she began lobbying him furiously when he showed up for a series of procedural votes leading up to the fateful climate change measure.

After Baca and others had cast their “yeas,” the speaker walked up to Filner and calmly said, “It’s now your time to be on the record, Mr. Filner,” according to a witness.

He voted yes.

Howie P.S.: It seems to me it was about 99% arm-twisting and 1% chaos.

"White House Wins On War, IMF Funds"

Ryan Grim (HuffPo):

As the clock began to count down the minutes that members of the House had to cast their vote on a war-funding bill topping $100 billion, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Calif.) waded into enemy territory.

The anti-war Democrat, who'd been whipping hard against the measure, stood behind a klatch of Republicans, watching the GOP computer and taking notes. It's not often that Kucinich and House Republicans find themselves on the same side. But the GOPers were determined to oppose what they call a bailout for foreign banks, and antiwar Democrats hoped to ally with them to block funding for wars they've long opposed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), meanwhile, hovered by the front desk, beaming. As the 15-minute vote wound down to zero, she was still far from the 218 she needed for passage, but she showed no sign of concern. The vote was held open as enough Democrats stepped forward to vote for the war money.

Fifty-one Democrats opposed the war funds the last time it came before the House. There was little pressure on them one way or the other. But when the Senate added the line of credit for the IMF and Republicans announced opposition, votes that had previously been worthless took on heightened value. The White House and Democratic leadership went into high gear, threatening and offering deals in exchange for a yes vote. This time around, 32 Democrats stayed as no votes.

Democrats who switched tapped Pelosi on the shoulder before walking back to their seats, swapping smiles, as Pelosi studied the lit-up board on the wall that displays the votes.

The tally hit 218, but Democrats seemed not to notice. When Pelosi looked up and saw it reading 220, she left the well of the floor and found Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wisc.), the Appropriations Committee Chairman, in his seat. The two shared a congratulatory handshake.

The vote was gaveled to a close, with five Republicans joining 221 Democrats. Pelosi turned her gaze back to the board, studying her members' votes.

She was no doubt pleased to see that these names sported a green box next to them this time, reversals from their previous no votes...

Howie P.S.: Too bad we'll probably never know what was offered to the "switchers" in return for their vote. While Rahmbo wasn't mentioned in the article, it's hard to imagine he wasn't also involved. Jane Hamsher gives us a little peek behind the curtain: "Whip Count: The Final Total, or How We Went from 0 to 32."


Barack Obama

"Pelosi Pushes Democrats To Vote For War Money"

CQ Politics:

House leaders appear ready to push ahead with a floor vote on the next war funding bill as early as Tuesday.

It’s not yet clear that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has persuaded enough fellow Democrats to support it. Democrats are the ones who’ll have to supply the votes because Republicans say they are going to stay united and vote against it.

“Nancy’s working it,” said Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha , D-Pa. “It’s going to be a very close vote.”

The spending package totals $106 billion.

Republicans particularly object to the $5 billion in the bill to let President Obama leverage $108 billion in additional lending by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

A total of 168 Republicans supported the bill when the House passed another version of the measure on a vote of 368-60, on May 14 . Fifty-one anti-war Democrats opposed the bill at that time.

Lynn Woolsey of California, a leader of the anti-war House Democrats, said the White House was threatening to withdraw support from freshmen who opposed the bill, saying, “You’ll never hear from us again.” She said the House leadership is also targeting the freshmen.

“It’s really hard for the freshmen,” she said. “Nancy’s pretty powerful.”

Another anti-war leader, Dennis J. Kucinich , D-Ohio, also predicted a close vote.

“There’s a good number of members holding solid,” said Kucinich. “From what I can see, people are concerned about going home and having to explain why they voted for the war when their constituents are opposed to it, and explain why they switched, if they switch.”

Some liberal Democrats in the House were assuaged by a conference committee decision to drop a Senate-passed provision that would have barred the public release of photos depicting abuse of U.S. prisoners.

Louise M. Slaughter , D-N.Y., said she would now support the bill.

“I was never about photos,” Slaughter said. “I was about freedom of information.”

Howie P.S.: I hope the proponents of health care reform in the Senate and White House are "pushing" as hard as for the public option as Nancy is on this vote. It was reported that the White House threatened Members of the House with

"you won't be hearing from us ever again" if you do not support the war spending bill.

ED talks with Nancy (video)

MSNBC-ED Show, video (09:13).

"Reading More Closely"

Josh Marshall:

From deep in The Politico beast, we find that Josh Gerstein's close reading acumen has not at all been impaired. Here's Gerstein looking closely this afternoon at that Leon Panetta statement from last Friday ...

Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta didn't reject or deny House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's allegations that she was falsely briefed by the CIA about interrogations.

Look carefully at Panetta's statement from Friday, especially the verb tense used. "Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress." First, "let me be clear" always precedes an ambiguous statement. Without fail. Panetta isn't opining on past acts. He's referring to the current policy. He's also not saying it never happens or happened that someone lied to or misled Congress. He's saying the agency as a whole doesn't intend to.

Panetta was at his Monterey, Calif. think tank when this all happened in 2002 and 2003. He doesn't know if Pelosi was lied to. He also doesn't say he talked to the briefers and is convinced they're telling the truth. He just says the paper records say she was briefed about the techniques. We knew that already from agency statements. So he's adding his voice to the mix and sending a signal that he'll stand by his agency, but to say he sided with the briefers on the specifics is just wrong.Again, I'm not saying Pelosi was lied to or even misled. It would seem rather brazen to do that. But Panetta's statement says less than people are claiming.

This is just right. This was certainly Panetta standing up for his Agency after Pelosi, the second person in line to the presidency, had taken a swipe. But to get the full significance of a document, even a simple memo, you need to look past the toplines to what the text actually says. And if you read Panetta closely he didn't take any position at all on the key question of whether Pelosi was right or not. It was a point lost on virtually everyone in town.

"Pelosi’s Claims Getting Much More Media Scrutiny Than CIA’s Assertions"

Greg Sargent:

Whichever side of the torture debate you’re on, it’s a simple matter of fact that Nancy Pelosi’s claims about what she was told and when about torture are getting far more intense media scrutiny than the CIA’s claims are.

Simple fairness demands that both side’s claims get treated with a similar level of skepticism. And they’re not.

Multiple news accounts this morning report that Pelosi’s credibility is in question after yesterday’s press conference, in which she accused the CIA of lying about what they told members of Congress about the agency’s use of torture. This theme was sounded by MSNBC, WaPo’s Dan Balz, the New York Times write-up, and many others.

That’s as it should be. But I challenge you to find a news account that stated with equal prominence that the CIA’s credibility is also in question.

Let’s briefly recap. Three senior Democrats — Pelosi, Bob Graham, and Jay Rockefeller — have all publicly claimed that the CIA didn’t brief them about the use of torture in the manner the agency has claimed. Meanwhile, the CIA itself has conceded that its own accounting may not be accurate.

Yet key facts that cast doubt on the CIA’s claims have been buried or completely omitted from multiple news reports. The Times’s first mention of Graham’s claims came today, five days after he first made them, and they were buried in the 22nd paragraph of the paper’s write-up. Neither The Time nor The Post have even mentioned Rockefeller’s claims once. The networks have refused across the board to mention the CIA’s own unwillingness to vouch for the accuracy of its information.

There are notable exceptions. McClatchy’s Jonathan Landay, for instance, has talked up the importance of the CIA’s caveats. And to its credit, The Politico has shined a spotlight on the dissents of Graham and Rockefeller and on some of the contradictions in the GOP’s criticism of Pelosi.

This is not only about Pelosi. It is a dispute. One side is claiming one thing, and the other is claiming the opposite. Simple fairness demands that equal levels of skepticism are applied to people on both sides of this argument. And that isn’t happening. There’s no way around it.

Countdown: "Truth squad to target Bush?" (video)

MSNBC, video (07:21).

Howie P.S.: Howard Fineman talks with Olbermann about Nancy Pelosi's interest in pursuing the "truth squad" proposal. Law Professor Jonathan Turley talks with Olbermann about some of the finer legal points.

Barack Obama

"Pelosi wants investigation of Bush officials" (with video)

Crooks and Liars, with video:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told Fox's Chris Wallace that there should be an investigation into whether the Bush Administration broke the law when firing Justice Department officials. "I think we have to learn from the past and we cannot let the politicizing of the Justice Department go unreviewed," said Pelosi.

"Dean Warns Against Prolonged Primary"

The Trail, WaPo's political blog:

As the Democratic presidential primary heads into its third month of voting, party officials said Monday that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean privately warned last week about the potential fallout from a protracted battle between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dean sat down last Tuesday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a scheduled meeting at DNC headquarters. He told the congressional leaders of his concerns that an extended contest could pose potential long-term harm to the party's presidential ticket, according to several strategists familiar with the closed-door meeting.

The sources stressed that Dean was expressing a long-held view that a lengthy primary only hurts the eventual nominee's chances against the Republican Party's candidate -- this year, almost surely Sen. John McCain. But each of the party leaders has become increasingly worried about the consequences of the Clinton-Obama race.

All three have remained neutral in the race -- aides say Dean will vote uncommitted in Tuesday's Vermont primary -- and no position was taken on the matter by Dean, Pelosi and Reid, the sources said.

While some may look to the three party leaders for direction to avoid an increasingly tough primary campaign, their relations have been cold and at times openly hostile the past three years.

Dean has talked about post-primary unity, while Pelosi -- whose closest allies are backing Obama -- has said that whichever candidate has the most votes and delegates at the end of the campaign would gain the support of most superdelegates to secure the nomination. Reid's son and other key political allies in Nevada backed Clinton, while he has ducked for several weeks questions about how to bring the campaign to a close and what role superdelegates should play.

Barack Obama

"Daniel Ellsberg: A Personal Vision for Cindy Sheehan's Campaign"

Daniel Ellsberg (BUZZFLASH):

[Remarks of Daniel Ellsberg at a press conference August 9, 2007 at which Cindy Sheehan announced her independent candidacy for the 8th Congressional District of California, an office now held by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.]

I don't speak for Cindy Sheehan -- whom I admire unreservedly -- or for her campaign. When I say "we" in what follows, I'm really just giving my own perspective on this campaign, as one of her supporters.

I see this campaign as aiming much higher than putting Cindy Sheehan in Congress in 2009. Well before that time, we aim to help restore our Constitution, to end a war and avert starting a new one, and to remove from power, two officials -- George W. Bush and Richard Cheney -- who block those objectives before they can do more harm in their remaining months in office.

That's an ambitious project; but there's a clear path to achieving it. We will work to change public awareness and, as a result, Nancy Pelosi's policies as Speaker of the House well before the election, by revealing to the public real alternatives to the courses she and the Democrats have followed so far, and demonstrating the breadth and strength of public support for those alternatives.

The truth is that Democrats, and even Republicans, can do much better than they have been doing, under Pelosi's leadership in the House, to protect our freedoms and our security. In this campaign, we will publicize specifics of what can and should be done, and let the public tell the politicians which approach they want.

One essential demand is for Pelosi to encourage, rather than to block, Congressional investigations of past and ongoing Administration deception, unwisdom, illegality, and unconstitutionality in pursuing an aggressive war and in curtailing our rights. Such investigations, calling forth testimony under oath of current and former officials, many of whom are eager to tell the truth at last, as well as demonstrating continued Administration stonewalling will almost surely lead to what does not yet exist: irresistible pressure from a belatedly informed public for the impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney.

Further, we need Pelosi's leadership in rescinding the unconstitutional parts -- which will not leave much -- of the PATRIOT Acts, the Military Commissions Act, and the recent, outrageous legislation purporting to legalize warrantless wiretaps and data mining. And -- absolutely essential to ending our war in Iraq, ever -- public pressure is needed to demand that Congress defund our indefinite occupation, providing funds only for the orderly, safe withdrawal of all our troops, contractors, and bases on an announced timetable.

If this campaign can help bring about even the first of these, it will also, almost incidentally, put Cindy Sheehan within reach of success in the election. This is, in fact, a historic campaign opportunity, exploiting an opening unique in American politics. At this moment, Cindy appears to face insuperable odds, opposing without party support, a powerful, heavily funded incumbent. But we aim to change that. All we are asking is for Nancy Pelosi to do what she should: to uphold her oath of office, which is not to obey a Commander-in-Chief or to enlarge a Democratic majority but to uphold and defend the Constitution.

If we can induce her to do that, then a year from now, Cindy Sheehan should be running for an open seat, or against a brand-new incumbent appointed by our Republican governor. Nancy Pelosi, third in line for succession when Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed, will be in the White House. That will, as it happens, leave an open field for Cindy.

So you see, it's nothing personal for us. After all, as representatives of big business go, Nancy Pelosi is better than most. We don't aim to kick her out of politics; we aim to kick her upstairs. And there's a bonus: President Pelosi as a write-in candidate in November. She's far from ideal, from the point of view of members of this campaign, but for Democrats, we could do a lot worse. Off the record, some of us see this as the best strategy for keeping Hillary out of the White House without letting a Republican in.

So there it is: a vision for 2009 that can evoke some real enthusiasm: Cindy in the House, Pelosi in the White House, the U.S. out of Iraq, our Constitution back, and Bush and Cheney under criminal indictment.

"Sheehan wants impeachment, Pelosi's job"

AP:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Monday moved another step — actually several thousand of them — toward carrying out her promise to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi because the California Democrat won't consider impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

Sheehan and about 200 other war protesters began walking from Arlington National Cemetery to the Capitol Hill office of Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment proceedings would begin. Sheehan said she would ask Conyers to initiate impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"Impeachment is not a fringe movement, it is mandated in our Constitution; Nancy Pelosi had no authority to take it off the table, " Sheehan told her group of orange-clad activists Monday. "If Nancy Pelosi doesn't do her constitutionally mandated job by midnight ... I will announce that I'm going to run against her."

Across the street, about 20 people demonstrated against Sheehan and the other anti-war protesters.

Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son Casey was killed in Iraq, has been saying for two weeks that she would seek to oust Pelosi from office by running against her as an independent in her San Francisco district if Pelosi didn't change her mind by July 23 on trying to impeach Bush.

Conyers, D-Mich., introduced a bill last term calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeaching Bush. Pelosi has steadfastly dismissed any talk of impeachment, saying Democrats should focus their efforts on ending the war in Iraq.

"Sheehan threatens to run against Pelosi"

AP:

Cindy Sheehan, the slain soldier's mother whose attacks on President Bush made her a darling of the anti-war movement, has a new target: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Sheehan, who announced in late May that she was departing the peace movement, said she decided to run against Pelosi unless the congresswoman moves to oust Bush in the next two weeks.

"I think all politicians should be held accountable," Sheehan told The Associated Press on Sunday. "Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership. We hired them to bring an end to the war."

Sheehan said she will run as an independent against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 if Pelosi does not file articles of impeachment against Bush by July 23. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

Although Sheehan has never held public office, she said she already has the name recognition and would not have to run against Pelosi in a primary.

"I would give her a run for her money," Sheehan said.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the congresswoman has said repeatedly her focus is on ending the war in Iraq.

"She believes that the best way to support our troops in Iraq is to bring them home safely and soon," Daly said in an e-mail to the AP. "July will be a month of action in Congress to end the war, including a vote to redeploy our troops by next spring."

Sheehan, who turns 50 on Tuesday, said Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention by torturing detainees and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. She said other grounds for impeachment are the domestic spying program and the "inadequate and tragic" response to Hurricane Katrina.

The White House declined to comment Sunday.

Sheehan said she hopes Pelosi files the articles of impeachment. But if not, Sheehan said she is ready to run for office.

Sheehan plans her official candidacy announcement Tuesday. She was in Crawford over the weekend to ceremoniously give the keys of the 5-acre protest site near Bush's ranch to its new owner, California radio talk show host Bree Walker.

"I'm doing it to encourage other people to run against Congress members who aren't doing their jobs, who are beholden to special interests," Sheehan said.

Sheehan first came to Crawford in August 2005 during Bush's vacation, demanding to talk to him about the war that claimed her son Casey's life in 2004.

She became the face of the anti-war movement during her 26-day roadside vigil that drew thousands of demonstrators. But it also drew counter protests of Bush supporters, many who said she was hurting troop morale.

Sheehan recently said she was leaving the Democratic Party because it "caved" into the president. Last week, she announced her caravan to Washington, which she calls the "people's accountability movement."

Sheehan said she lives in a Sacramento suburb but declined to disclose which city, citing safety reasons. The area is outside Pelosi's district, but there are no residency requirements for congressional members, according to the California secretary of state's office.

Howie P.S.: Sounds more like a promise than a threat, to me. Meanwhile, "Edging Away From Inner Circle, Pelosi Asserts Authority."