
 
 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol last week. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) 
 
 First, Pelosi said of the deal: “We all may not be able to support it, or none us may be able to support it.” Then, later in the evening she folowed up with this lukewarm comment: “I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my caucus to see what level of support we can provide.” 
 
 Pelosi, a savvy political operator, understands that the bill — backed by all of the other major congressional leaders and President Obama — will pass. 
 
 Her reaction then is best understood as equal parts caucus politics and message-sending to the White House. 
 
 There’s no question that liberals in the House — of which Pelosi is very much one — are not happy with the deal. 
 
 The idea of more than $1 trillion in immediate cuts with no tax or revenue increases to offset them had the progressive caucus and the black caucus up in arms. 
 
 Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, called the deal “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich” — a sentiment reflected (if not so colorfully) in a number of public comments from liberals Sunday 
 
 That’s not insignificant to Pelosi’s own politics because liberals comprise an even larger chunk of the Democratic caucus in the House than they did two years ago thanks the destruction of moderate and conservative Blue Dogs in the 2010 election. 
 
 The key to Pelosi’s success in the House — demonstrated in her ability to hold on as leader after Democrats lost the majority in 2010 — is her strength among liberals in the caucus. 
 
 Looking as though she happily and quickly signed off on a deal that will leave many House liberals deeply unhappy would badly undermine Pelosi’s appeal to her base. And she’s smart enough not to do that. 
 
 There’s also some history — dating back to before the 2010 election — between the White House and Pelosi/House Democrats that explains her comments about the compromise. 
 
 Democrats in the lower chamber have fumed, mostly privately, about what they believe is a not only a dismissive attitude toward them from the White House but also a favoritism toward the Senate. 
 
 Pelosi wants to make a point here — that the White House can cut all the deals it want but that she and the Democratic House caucus won’t immediately fall in line if it’s not in their own political or policy interests to do so. 
 
 Ultimately, Pelosi is a team player and won’t urge her Democratic colleagues to rob President Obama of the deal he desperately wants/needs heading into 2012. 
 
 But that doesn’t mean Pelosi won’t take her time — or maybe even vote against the compromise deal. 
 
 “I think she will not let it die even if in the end she votes against it,” predicted one Pelosi confidante. 
 
 Priorities USA leans on single donor: A new super PAC started by former Obama aides raised $3.2 million in the first half of 2011, with most of it coming from just one donor, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission on Sunday. 
 
 DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg accounted for $2 million of the total raised by Priorities USA Action. Another $1 million came from Chicago businessman Fred Eychaner and the Service Employees International Union’s PAC, who gave half a million each. Most of the other $160,000 came from 23 donors. 
 
 As a whole, Priorities USA Action and its nonprofit arm, Priorities USA, raised $5 million. The Fix reported Friday that Priorities USA and several other Democratic-aligned outside groups combined to raise $10 million in the first six months of this year. 
 
 Compared to the $20 million that a Republican-leaning group associated with the American Crossroads super PAC just spent on its summer ad blitz, and Democrats are still fighting from behind when it comes to outside groups. 
 
 Meanwhile, hedge fund manager John Paulson and hotel executive J.W. Marriott gave $1 million and $500,000, respectively, to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney for president. It was previously reported that the group, Restore Our Future PAC, raised more than $12 million so far this year. 
 
 Fixbits: 
 
 Obama hasn’t given up on phasing out the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. 
 
 Herman Cain wins a straw poll in Denver. 
 
 Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) won’t rule out being someone’s vice presidential running mate. 
 
 Veteran Kentucky political analyst Al Cross says GOP governor candidate David Williams shouldn’t be counted out. 
 
 Tim Pawlenty aide Sarah Huckabee Sanders says Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), a veteran of multiple statewide campaigns, hasn’t really been vetted. 
 
 Must-reads: 
 
 “Congress putting its faith in committee” — David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post 
 
 “Big-dollar Rick Perry supporters fuel campaign committees with Perry ties” — Wayne Slater, Dallas Morning News 
 
 “Tea party support not a given for Perry” — Richard S. Dunham and Jeanna Smialek, Houston Chronicle 
 
 “As Redistricting Plays Out, Lawmakers Face Uncertainty, or Even Extinction” — Raymond Hernandez, New York Times 
 
 Read more on PostPolitics.com 
 
 President Obama’s 50th birthday: A time for reflection . . . and fundraising 
 
 White House, congressional leaders reach debt-limit deal 
 
 Winners and losers: the debt deal ||||| Black Caucus, progressives to oppose debt deal 
 
 By Kase Wickman 
 
 Sunday, July 31, 2011 21:39 EDT 
 
 “The leaders of both parties in both chambers have reached an agreement that will reduce the deficit and avoid default,” President Barack Obama said in a brief statement to the press Sunday night at the White House. Just because Obama has House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in agreement, the vote on the plan, scheduled for Monday, is not necessarily a done deal. 
 
 Not only will Boehner have to convince more than half of the House’s 240 Republican members to vote in favor of the bill, but problems lurk within the chamber’s blue seats as well. 
 
 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that she would have to speak to her members and look at the deal more closely before assuring votes. 
 
 “We all may not be able to support it — or none of us may be able to support it,” she told Bloomberg. 
 
 The Progressive Caucus and the Black Caucus have scheduled a press conference for Monday to outline why they are opposed to the deal, which would raise the debt ceiling and cut around $1 trillion in spending over the next decade. 
 
 “This deal does not even attempt to strike a balance between more cuts for the working people of America and a fairer contribution from millionaires and corporations,” Progressive Caucus leader Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said in a statement Sunday night. “I will not be a part of it.” 
 
 The Black Caucus Sunday released a letter urging Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment and take the debt crisis into his own hands, something the president had said he was unwilling to do. 
 
 In a floor speech Sunday prior to the deal announcement, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) encouraged the same. 
 
 Trouble also lurks, more familiarly, to Obama’s right. 
 
 “This isn’t the greatest deal in the world,” Boehner said in a statement Sunday night, urging a vote as soon as possible. “But it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town.” 
 
 Boehner and other conservatives have faced resistance from those Republicans who represent tea party ideals. Tomorrow’s vote is sure to be another tea party standoff. 
 
 “I’m afraid this is not going to fix the problem, and that’s the one reason I came here,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-TX), who was elected by tea party constituents. 
 
 Obama, for one, realized that the vote has not happened yet, and encouraged Americans to continue to contact their members of Congress to express support for the plan. 
 
 “We’re not done yet,” he said Sunday night. ||||| President Barack Obama’s rightward lurch to reach a $3 trillion deficit reduction deal with no guarantee of additional revenues had liberals fuming and Republicans all but declaring victory Sunday afternoon. 
 
 With time running out to reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling before Tuesday’s default deadline, Obama moved dramatically in the direction of the GOP, according to Senators and aides in both parties. 
 
 As details trickled out Sunday, the deal framework appeared to give Republicans most of what they were seeking — with about $3 trillion in guaranteed spending cuts but no tax increases, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday. 
 
 “We are going to deal with this problem the American people sent us here to deal with, which is that the government has been spending too much,” the Kentucky Republican said on CNN. 
 
 In return, Obama, whose poll numbers are at all-time lows, gets to avoid another debt ceiling battle before voters head to polls in November 2012, and he will be able to argue that he was willing to compromise to help save the country from a default crisis. 
 
 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also signed off on the deal late Sunday afternoon, “pending caucus approval,” said his spokesman, Adam Jentleson. 
 
 But first, the president and Democratic leaders could face a backlash from liberals angry that they appear to have agreed to a revenue-free debt ceiling bill that includes a “trigger” only for automatic cuts in defense, Medicare and other programs if a second deficit reduction package isn’t enacted by the end of this year. 
 
 Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said early reports of the new deal appeared to be “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich.” The Missouri Democrat said the CBC hadn’t yet made a formal declaration that the group would oppose it, “but this is a shady bill.” 
 
 “This deal trades people’s livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it,” ripped Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, before House Democrats had even been briefed. “The lesson today is that Republicans can hold their breath long enough to get what they want.” 
 
 For weeks, liberals have feared that Obama would give in to Republican demands for trillions in spending cuts without a guarantee of “sacrifice” from the wealthy. In a last-ditch effort to stop such a deal, progressive lawmakers amped up their calls that Obama simply ignore the debt ceiling and use the 14th Amendment as a justification. 
 
 The White House tried to tamp down the liberal unrest by making it clear that Obama still wants revenue in a final deficit reduction package later this year. That deal would be crafted by a new joint committee, which would be created under the tentative agreement. 
 
 National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling said on CNN that Obama would still insist on a balanced package that includes tax reform, and he noted that the president still does not support anything that would cut benefits for seniors without asking the wealthy to sacrifice as well. 
 
 But there is no guarantee that Republicans will give an inch on revenues. 
 
 One senior House Democratic aide said the deal appeared to be so bad for the Democrats that it might get fewer than 50 votes from their side. That could force Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to corral the vast bulk of the votes from his Conference. 
 
 Rep. Kurt Schrader, a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, predicted more optimistically that 80 Democrats would back it. 
 
 “While we’re a very diverse Caucus, at the end of the day, we’re not going to put our ideology ahead of the good of the country,” the Oregon Democrat said. 
 
 Still, Obama may have some persuading to do in order to get his Democratic colleagues on board. 
 
 “I think the president will come in here and sell whatever agreement he comes to,” Schrader predicted. 
 
 Selling the package to House Republicans, meanwhile, could be a lot easier given that the deal builds off of Boehner’s own bill. The package that was emerging Sunday afternoon would eliminate the requirement that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution be passed and sent to the states — but it would include at least a vote on such a proposal in both chambers. 
 
 Sen. Carl Levin said the president did not appear to be willing to make the sustained argument that the wealthy pay their fair share but would at least have another chance next year when the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and the nation’s credit rating isn’t on the line. 
 
 “The question is how hard he will fight,” the Michigan Democrat said. 
 
 Several Senate Democrats appeared resigned to backing a revenue-free deal, even as the details were still being ironed out. 
 
 “I think not having revenues is a mistake, but it may be all we can do at this point,” Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said. 
 
 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, “I’m not pleased with having it happen this way.” She added she would probably back it “because I think the worst possible thing is for us not to pay our bills.” 
 
 Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) also said on CNN that Democrats would still push to have revenue included in a final package to be negotiated later by a new 12-person joint deficit reduction committee. That committee would be empowered to send a package without amendment to the House and Senate floors for up-or-down votes by Thanksgiving. 
 
 Some Democrats said the political consequences of the joint committee failing to act would hit the GOP more than on the president’s party. Talks on the details of a trigger, which several Senators and aides said was still being tweaked Sunday, included accommodations that would make it more palatable to Democrats. 
 
 Though the trigger would force cuts to Medicare, those cuts would come from Medicare providers rather than beneficiaries directly, Democratic Senators and aides said. And large defense cuts are intended to bring the GOP to the table to compromise. 
 
 Levin said that if the trigger affected Medicare benefits directly, very few Democrats could support it. 
 
 One advantage of such a trigger is that it would create a large array of powerful interests — from defense contractors to health care providers — who would have a huge stake in the passage of a second deficit reduction plan. 
 
 And there is also a political advantage to the trigger for Democrats as well. If Republicans opted to pull the trigger rather than agree to any tax increases, Democrats could blast them in the 2012 campaign as hurting seniors to protect millionaires and billionaires. 
 
 “That gives a political argument, but in the meantime, there’s a hell of a lot of damage done to average people in this country,” Levin said. 
 
 Some Democrats were still looking to sweeten the deal Sunday afternoon, with Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) saying he hopes the package will extend the payroll tax cut for another year. 
 
 The joint deficit committee inspired fear in both parties. Some liberal groups think it has too much power to slash entitlements, while some conservatives are afraid it could be a way to force through a tax increase. 
 
 But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) dismissed such concerns. A tax increase would “never pass the House,” he said. 
 
 Reid, who conceived the committee idea, said “it will be essential to choose members with open minds willing to consider every option — even when those options are tough pills to swallow for both parties. Cooperation is the only way forward.” 
 
 Jessica Brady, Meredith Shiner and John Stanton contributed to this report.
– Liberals are just a wee bit unhappy with the deal President Obama struck to increase the debt ceiling. The Progressive Caucus and the Black Caucus will hold a press conference today to announce their opposition to the deal, Raw Story reports. Black Caucus Chairman Emanuel Cleaver delivered the real money quote yesterday, telling Roll Call that based on early reports, the pact looked like “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich.” Rep. Cleaver stood by the quote in an MSNBC interview, saying the bill was “antithetical to everything the great religions of the world teach, which is take care of the poor, take care of the aged.” He said he still needed to review the details, “but on the surface, it looks like a Satan sandwich.” Nancy Pelosi meanwhile darkly hinted that “We all may not be able to support it, or none us may be able to support it.” But Washington Post sources say Pelosi is just firing a warning shot past a dismissive White House, and won't actually block the bill.