Here is the transcript of my exchange with Nancy Pelosi this morning. She responds to claims made in Newsweek article sourced to an anonymous "senior Obama official," indicating that she had fast tracked the stimulus bill over the objections of the White House:
JANE HAMSHER: There was an article in Newsweek yesterday that indicated you had fast tracked the stimulus bill over the objections of the White House — is that true, and also how would you respond to anonymous "senior Obama officials" who say that dealing with Democrats is tougher than dealing with Republicans?
NANCY PELOSI: For some reason, it serves somebody’s purpose to put this kind of thing out there. Let me get this straight. You’re the President of the United States, you have a recovery package that you want done by the President’s break, we get that done and we fast tracked it over the President’s objections? It couldn’t be further from the truth.
But you will see a series of articles now that serves somebody’s purpose — whether they’re saying that I keep a list of members — couldn’t be farther from the truth. My commitment is to all of my members, and every day is a new day for me. They voted wrong one day, I need ‘em for another vote the next day. So I don’t have any "list," A.
B, another one said I said I said to the White House, "you can’t talk to the members unless you talk to me first." I don’t have that kind of time. Nor do I have the interest. What I said to the White House is, talk to the members: Talk to the chairmen, talk to the different caucuses, they have a lot of ideas that you all should be communicating with them on. But again, it serves somebody’s purpose to put out that we have this division with the White House. We absolutely do not.
And in terms of — to tell you the truth, I could’ve fast tracked this much faster. We did it one week and one day. We didn’t start on inauguration day — we had the this, we had the hearings. This is a false claim on the part of the Republicans — we had the hearings. The Republicans said they want — what is that thing called, the operating loss carryback — they wanted that in in the bill, and they wanted hearings, they wanted markups for the bill. So we gave them the operating loss carryback, and hearings. We had hearings, but we also had hearings on the amendments, markups on the amendments — we had 26, 27 hours of markups on the amendments.
And then they went to the floor, they had their amendments, we won some, they won some. The Senate actually took out one of the Republican amendments that won, which was the whistleblower one. So we gave them the regular order in order to go forward. We were not going to go backward and adopt their economic failed policies, and that’s what they’re upset about. Operating loss carryback is no longer in the bill, we didn’t get one Republican vote. That was their priority, that’s what they wanted, it may have some merit, maybe we’ll see it another day. It’s in there for smaller businesses, but not across the board. But that’s no longer in the bill, because the Senate wanted the Alternative Minimum Tax, and that prevailed.
So we are an independent branch of government. We have our own process as to how we bring legislation to the floor. We work closely with the Obama administration to move their priorities forward, not without Congress working its will with on certain aspects of the bill, and as you saw in the reconciliation with the Senate, they prevailed on some points, we prevailed on others. But I don’t think the President wanted to — he wanted his bill passed, and we got it passed.
The audio from the event can be found here. Our exchange happened very near the end.



32 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Your move, Rahmbo!
Just because she’s a sweetie doesn’t mean you can roll her, dude.
I do like it that Pelosi is ON the record, as compared to the “Senior Obama Officials” who are too cowardly to allow themselves to stand up for their own crap.
Act like an honest person “Senior Obama Officials” for you do show a streak of cowardice when you hide behind the reporters.
good that she talked to …what’s it called?… “new media”? But she says she doesn’t keep lists? C’momn Nancy, everybody keeps lists.
This is my very favorite part of the piece. I have been hearing this more lately, and I want to hear even more.
Especially on the “news” shows.
This kind, too, as it will come up again:
(paraphrasing) [We gave them their priority issue, but]
But given recent poll numbers of the public’s view of who’s trying to be “bipartisan” and who’s being obstructionist, it appears that the public gets it in spite of the “media.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02……html?_r=1
My favorite line from the Times piece on the polling:
So what purpose was Rahmbo serving, and why?
It’s getting a lot easier to see the sign of grownups being in government these days. They respond without diatribe, they act like they don’t mind answering the question. How weird. How different.
The whole notion that the this bill was fastracked “over the objections of the White House” is absurd. Initially the Obama administration wanted the stimulous ready on day one and was told it couldn’t be ready that fast. The reporter on this piece should have been a whole lot more of a skeptic.
The best guess by some informed individuals is that Rahm is hoping a caretaker gets elected to his old seat today in the special election.
A caretaker who would then bow out in ‘10 or ‘12, allowing Rahm to come back “triumphantly” and re-claim his seat, returning him to the House where he could challenge a “damaged” Nancy Pelosi for the Speaker.
I think he might also still believe in the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny as well.
I’m baffled by this whole story, given Obama’s publicly stated desire for a bill ready the day he took office.
That’s what I’m trying to figure out. I assume that he operates with the approval of the President?
It’s confusing to me. Why would Obama let Rahm do this stuff?
Rahm is behaving exactly as we expected him to. The
difficultimpossible thing to comprehend is that Obama HAS to be aware of Rahm’s antics, so presumably the president believes that it somehow serves the purposes of his administration.Whoever gets Rahm’s office is going to need to do some serious smudging.
That’s what I want to know too.
It seems that Rahm is giving Nancy the shaft to firm up a coalition of R’s and blue dogs. I hope I’m wrong.
Hmmm…a coalition of R’s and Blue Dogs. Is that change we can believe in…Or is it more of what we were oppressed with during the last 8 years?
Interesting. I’d never vote for him…but I’m not in Chicago.
i have a problem with how speaker pelosi has manipulated house procedures to get around citizen accountability. i don’t care if she fast tracked a bill over the objections of the administration – what i care about is when she puts bills up for a vote before citizens and sometimes even congress has seen the bill.
she promised in jan 2006 that would stop. it did not (see fisa). what i want to know is when will it?
oh, and i do keep lists.
Heh.
hey Jane and Firedogs,
for those who haven’t yet read through Jane’s link – The Speaker fields a question on Cramdowns/Tauscher –
am gonna go re-read as my initial impression isn’t a good ‘un.
Faster, Pussycat. Bill! Bill!
You know, when I first read this I thought you were talking about Jane.
Still trying to wrap my head around that. Obama would have to be persuaded that Rahmbo’s House prospects in a few years are more important than the country’s immediate economic problems, wouldn’t he?
It seems that Rahm is giving Nancy the shaft to firm up a coalition of R’s and blue dogs.
Which goes contrary to Obama’s (and the country’s) interest. I still don’t get it.
That incumbency racket again?
If you can make sense out of it, would you please post your synopsis? I just skimmed it, but not sure it was coherent enough to judge her position.
What I understood was “we don’t want to do bankruptcy cramdown because we want peopl to stay in their homes without having to file bkcy.”
Which is fine, as far as it goes, but – bkcy is going to be the only option for lots of people. And cramdown is the tool to allow them to stay in their homes.
Admittedly, I sometimes get a little confused b/c in Texas, homesteads are among a number of things exempted (that is you get to keep them) in bankruptcy, along with tools needed for your trade, and I believe, a few livestock. (definitely a statute passed in rural times)
Pre-supposes that everything Rahm says and does is coordinated with Obama. Rahm has been known to perform the loose cannon role and do things on his own.
Oh lookee here, Gov Moonpie is taking the money, where’s Saxby?
I guess I’m naive, but where does it say that Rahm is the source? If leaking something like this doesn’t make any sense, and we posit that the Obama White House does have some sense, why should we believe Newsweek? Just asking.
During the presidential campaign, the Obama folks were known for discipline and a lack of leaks.
After the election, Rahm joins the team as the “Chief of Staff”. Suddenly, the Obama transition team is Leak Central.
Rahm, who has been known to build himself up at the expense of others.
In DC, the use of the “Senior White House Officials” as a fig leaf of protection.
Is it certain that Rahm is the leaker? No. Is it a very good educated guess based on past performance? You betcha.
Thanks. I went back and read the transcript of the interview. Thanks to Jane!
Listening to Pelosi dance backwards on the cramdowns and to her ‘constructive’ talks w/Tauscher re: same, was that part of her talk which did not make any sense. She didn’t use the words ‘cramdowns’ and she disavowed the term ‘bankruptcy’ and then referenced a crease she’d made in reality to mean what she really means.
Okay. Yes. It was like watching the cat walk backwards in the Matrix. Everyone kinda figures that reality is being tweaked. It didn’t read well.
everytime i see pelosi & obama speaking together, i observe their body language, (something i know a bit about),very intently.
i have never detected tension, nor anger between them.
Do we know if “Senior Obama officials” actually existed? I mean, really, was it the media that invented this or a republican sycophant? I highly doubt Pelosi and Obama are at each other’s throats. They seem to be on the same page to me.
I don’t see any daylight between Dems these days. It’s really remarkable.
Republicans on the other hand….