"If House Democrats Were Able to Vote Their Conscience, This Bill would Have No Chance of Passing."

Via email:

Media reports point to increasing turmoil inside the House Democratic ranks over the Democratic leadership's plan to cut off support for American troops in Iraq. Rank-and-file Democrats claim their leaders are pressuring them to vote in favor of the pork-laden "slow bleed" bill by threatening to bar them from receiving pet spending projects if they refuse to march in lockstep.

One House Democrat told The Politico that "Democratic leaders ... have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district." The same story reported:

"Democratic leaders have also added billions in funds not related to wartime spending in a bid for more support.

"That additional money was attractive for at least one lawmaker, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), an Out of Iraq Caucus member. ...

"'That's pretty vital for our district, so we'll be voting for the bill,' [DeFazio spokesman Danielle] Langone said."

At a news conference this morning, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) condemned House Democratic leaders' "pork and retreat" politics:

"They're trying to buy support for this dangerous proposal by loading it up with unnecessary spending. If [rank-and-file] Democrats were able to vote their conscience, this bill would have no chance of passing."

Editorial boards across America are expressing their outrage as well. The USA Today editorial board today wrote:

"It's hard to say which is worse: leaders offering peanuts for a vote of this magnitude, or members allowing their votes to be bought for peanuts."

Moreover, an editorial in the Dallas Morning News this morning wrote:

"Initially lacking the votes to pass a bill that includes a hard timetable for withdrawal, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants turned pay-as-you-go into bribe-as-you-go, hoping to round up more members of their own party."

And an editorial titled "Hogs on the Hill" from the Washington Times writes:

"The vast majority of the additions comprised pork projects or spending utterly unrelated to the wars. The extra spending was designed for a single purpose: to purchase support from Democrats who otherwise would have voted against the bill."

So the question remains: Are Democratic leaders buying votes to pass their "slow-bleed" scheme?