Washington Post: Democrats "Should Not Seek to Use Pork to Buy a Majority for an Unconditional Retreat"

Via email:

Trading pork for votes? The Washington Post editorial board slams House Democratic leaders for the unseemly "pork and retreat" approach they've employed to move their "slow-bleed" strategy forward:

"House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. It would heap money on unneedy dairy farmers while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. [Democrats] should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support."

Numerous media outlets have reported how - slowly but surely -- rank-and-file Democrats have begun to switch their votes in favor of the pork-laden "slow bleed" bill because Democratic leaders are threatening to bar them from receiving pet spending projects if they refuse to march in lockstep.

New reports from The Hill this morning demonstrate the lengths to which the Democratic leadership is going:

"Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), a former Black Panther who now represents one of the most liberal districts in the nation, decided yesterday to support the Iraq war supplemental spending bill because he was promised help with an issue 'unrelated' to the bill.

"'Let bygones be bygones,' Rush said. He kept mum about what assurances he received from House leaders but reaffirmed he would vote for the bill when it comes to the House floor today."

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

At a news conference yesterday, 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."

An editorial in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution says "[I]t's inappropriate and in the end unnecessary to try to sway votes through such means" while calling it "congressional pork masquerading as deadly serious legislation."

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