Under peace movement pressure at home, Pelosi backs Murtha's call for withdrawal from Iraq

By Tim Redmond

Rep. Nancy Pelosi has finally taken a strong antiwar position, demonstrating that the powerful San Francisco Democrat is not immune to constituent pressure and is finally paying attention to political action from the city's vocal antiwar majority. Yet Pelosi refuses to use her position as the top Democrat in the US House of Representatives to push her party to demand an end to the US occupation of Iraq.

Pelosi announced Nov. 30 that she would support the call by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) for a rapid withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. That was a shift from her initial position: When Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran who is generally hawkish on military issues, held a press conference Nov. 18 saying that the "troops have done all they can" and that it was time for President George W. Bush to withdraw the armed forces from Iraq, Pelosi was unwilling to sign on. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank quoted her as saying only that "Mr. Murtha speaks for himself."

But there's been a tremendous outcry in her home district for Pelosi to quit waffling on the war. In September protesters held a "die-in" in front of Pelosi's San Francisco office to demand she oppose any further spending on the war. A month later, on Oct. 26, the local Democratic County Central Committee debated competing resolutions on the war, one directly calling on Pelosi to support troop withdrawal, and Pelosi's allies were forced to scramble to create a compromised plan that wouldn't appear to be a rebuke to the House minority leader.

And over the past few weeks, Green Party activists, including former supervisor Matt Gonzalez and Medea Benjamin, a longtime opponent of the war, have been talking seriously about challenging Pelosi in the midterm elections in November. Benjamin was coming close to announcing she'd run, and had gone as far as to draft (but not yet send) a letter to Pelosi warning that her refusal to back the Murtha plan would lead the Greens to field a candidate against her.

Of course, even a strong Green Party challenge would be a long shot at best, but it would send shock waves through the city's left and potentially embarrass a congressional leader who is used to having nothing more than a token Republican opponent on the ballot. Most years she barely bothers to come home and campaign for re-election.

There's evidence that she wasn't utterly dismissing the Green Party threat. Early Wednesday morning, Nov. 30 – well before Pelosi's statement of support for Murtha was posted on her Web site – a press release announcing her position arrived in Benjamin's e-mail box at Global Exchange, the nonprofit she runs.

"Her office knew we were talking about [a challenge]," Benjamin told the Bay Guardian.

And the change in position has had an impact. "The whole drive to challenge her was based on the antiwar platform," Benjamin said, adding that she's reevaluating her potential campaign. "I'll wait and see what happens," she said. "This is a major step for Pelosi, who has been such a terrible disappointment. I hope she now will provide some real leadership for the party."

So far, that's still one for the hope column. Pelosi told reporters Nov. 30 that she wouldn't try to line up the House Democratic Caucus behind Murtha's proposal, saying that "a vote for war is an individual vote."

Jennifer Crider, a press spokesperson for Pelosi, told us the caucus is still divided on the issue, and Pelosi doesn't see any reason to push it. "It's clear that this isn't a party position," she said.

As for whether Pelosi is worried about angry folks back home, Crider said, "She obviously listens to what her constituents say, but this is her own position."

E-mail Tim Redmond at tredmond@sfbg.com.