House Dems bullish ahead of vote on Iraq

House Democratic leaders expressed confidence yesterday that they have the votes to pass the latest version of their Iraq supplemental today, even though at least two former supporters are wavering.

The leadership’s confidence rests on the common belief that those who joined the narrow majority in passing the bill in March will stay on, even though the fixed timetable for withdrawal has been replaced with a “goal.”

{mosads}But that change has caused heartburn for progressives like Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), who had voted for the bill in the Appropriations Committee and on the floor last month.

“Right now, I’m inclined not to” vote for the bill, Jackson said late yesterday.

And Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who was a last-minute surprise vote in favor of the Iraq spending bill last month, is also reconsidering his vote.

“It continues to be a tough call. Making it a goal makes it a difficult vote,” Grijalva said Tuesday.

And the change has failed to win over Democratic conservatives like Reps. Dan Boren (Okla.) and Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), who opposed the bill last month. A Boren aide said the lawmaker will vote no today.

“I’m undecided,” Davis said yesterday, explaining, “I still think signaling to your enemy when you’re going to leave is not the wisest thing to do.”

Several Democratic House members said that Bush’s veto threat, reaffirmed yesterday, would make voting for it a little easier.
“If the president’s going to veto it, I’ll probably vote for it,” said Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.). “If he’d sign it, I’d probably vote against it.”

Other anti-war lawmakers say the need to compromise and move the bill is obvious.

“We need to send the best strong message we can. In order to send any message, we need 218 votes,” Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said.

The actual “magic number” is 216 votes because of several vacancies and expected absences. Among them, Barbara Cubin (R-Wyo.) is not expected to be present for the vote because she is still in Wyoming to stay with her ill husband, said her press secretary, Allison McGuise.

As Bush reiterated his veto threat yesterday, he accused Democrats of playing politics with troop funding. That drew a sharp response from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“I thought it was beneath the dignity of the issue we’re facing here,” Pelosi said. “This is an ethical issue. This isn’t a political issue. I wish he would respect our perspective, which is the perspective of the American people.”

Last month, the House voted 218 to 212 to support the bill, giving leaders little room for error.

The legislation that passed on the floor would have ordered most troops out of Iraq by September 2008. Although the conference report agreed to on Monday night weakens the language requiring troop withdrawal, it would speed up the withdrawal to April 2008 and mandate that it start in October.

Many members are already looking past today’s vote to what will happen after a veto. House Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) has said a two-month war-spending bill is “very likely.”

Farr is continuing to support the bill even though relief for spinach farmers in his district has been removed. He acknowledged that the spinach provision became a “poster child” for critics of the unrelated spending in the bill.
“Chairman [David] Obey (D-Wis.) and Speaker Pelosi stood up for it. It’s too bad the Senate didn’t have the guts to do the same,” Farr said.

Despite the potential defections, even the Democratic opponents of the bill said they expect it to pass the House today.
“I think they’ll have the same votes they had before,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who worked against the bill last month before clearing the way for its passage. She added that she will not work against the conference report.
   
Jonathan E. Kaplan and Margareta Heed contributed to this report.