"Speaker" Pelosi? I Think Not, And Her Attitude Proves It
I ran across this story on Yahoo News about Nancy Pelosi, and I had to laugh. Is there a real possibility that she could become Speaker of the House? Of course. Anything can happen in an election, but looking at the landscape right now, I think she might want to put her "100 hours" on hold.
Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.
As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats — in her fondest wish — win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.
All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.
"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."
"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.
Pelosi, 66, has been a leader of the House Democrats since 2002. But her political apprenticeship dates to childhood, when her father was mayor of Baltimore.
Now, her political base is about as liberal as it gets, San Francisco. It's a fact that Republicans love to emphasize to voters who might want to visit, but not feel comfortable living there.
Republicans find her an attractive political target, and recently said she would try to "cut-and-run" from Iraq while "launching bitter partisan investigations" of the Bush administration, possibly including impeachment hearings.
A grandmother five times over, Pelosi pops chocolates, shuns coffee and flashes her wit. Asked what offices should would occupy if in the Capitol if she becomes speaker, she laughed. "I'll have any suite I want."
She would, too.
"If the election were held today we'd be successful," Pelosi predicted, claiming that her party's prospects are expanding as the campaign enters its final month. "So many other races are emerging right now," she said.
Democrats must gain 15 seats to regain the majority they lost in 1994, and have candidates in competitive races for 30 or so Republican-held seats, according to strategists in both parties. By contrast, only about a handful of Democratic-controlled seats appear ripe for possible Republican takeover.
Democrats have a pamphlet that lists all their promises and have run through several slogans in the past year or so as they test campaign messages. In recent days, Pelosi said, their prospects have improved by the discovery that former Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida had sent sexually explicit computer messages to teenage male pages.
Not long before sitting down for a lunchtime interview, she turned down a suggestion from Speaker Dennis Hastert that they jointly appoint former FBI Director Louie Freeh to recommend improvements in the page program.
"That was about protecting their majority" rather than the pages, she said dismissively.
Instead, she wants to put Hastert and other Republicans under oath and make them say what they knew of Foley's actions, when they learned it and what they did to stop him.
The potential for political gain is clear to her.
Let's take these one at a time. Day one and two are already done. The House Republicans, led by newly-elected Majority Leader Boehner started that months ago, and are working their way through it. The earmarks legislation, and recently approved voter-accesible database were Republican ideas. The implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations have been met. The DCI was created from it. Many things went into place before the Commission even idssued their final report. The NSA surveillance program and SWIFT were initiated in the wake of 9/11. "Tighter surveillance" of our enemy was among many of the Commission's suggestions.
Many communities have living wage ordinances enacted already, and three--San Francisco, Chicago, and Santa Fe--have the most far-reaching ordinances enacted dealing with a living wage. ANY increase in the minimum wage is a mistake. It helps raise the cost of living. Employers who offer goods and services have to raise the cost of those to the consumer to compensate for their having to comply with the minimum wage laws.
And when it comes to cutting ANY interest rates, I prefer the Federal Reserve to do that, not some yuckety schmuck in Congress doing it. Congress has enough control over our money as it is. Interest rates I'd prefer to leave in the hands of experts, not a fantasizing, power-hungry representative that is counted as one of the most liberal in the Congress; Even the above report points that out. and the same goes for the government negotiating ANYTHING with private industry. Negotiating drug prices? Give me a break. How about passing tort reform so we can lower ALL the costs of health are? Look, lawyers are bloodsuckers. I'll admit the vast majority are, and there are times where I think I work with enough of them. You'll get a handle on skyrocketing costs if you curtail the lawyers in what they seek for damages.
The stem-cell debate I've tried to stay out of. I have an emotional attachment to it. (WARNING: I'm Catholic.) I'm in favor of the uses and research regarding adult stem cells--a method that is proven and being used today. But embryonic stem cells have shown no results, and I don't like the idea of the federal government spending more of our money on endeavors best left to private industry. This is also an attempted swipe at the president for denying federal funds to that research. she acts as if it's illegal, in some convoluted way, to conduct any sort of research on embryonic stem cells. It's not. Certain methods are approved, and the private sector is more than able to find contributors to their research. But the federal government shouldn't be one of them.
And we just knew she was going to hop on the tax-cut repeal bandwagon. They always want to rip away any sort of tax relief from the working people. And, of course, they always pick on the rich. Democrats are so damned hypocritical. They're rich, themselves, but yet they want to punish success. "New," entrepreneurial money isn't right to them because the working man is being shafted somehow. He has a job, and a wage, but they'd rather hit the small businessman by punishing him for his success. If he succeeds, his employees succeed; Their worklife and conditions will improve. If Nancy Pelosi thinks that her tax ideas are going to hurt people like Donald Trump and Bill Gates, or another Ken Lay wanna-be, think again. It's going to end up hurting the entrepreneurs out there looking to start and run their own businesses. And when they take it in the backside from the Congress, he's going to let some of his workers go because he won't be able to pay them. Way to go, Nancy. Way to lower unemployment!
The GOP is right to go after her on her Iraq stance. Just days after disavowing Rep. Murtha's call for a withdrawal from Iraq, she jumped on his bandwagon--hearing the endless calls of the moonbats in the night hyping an issue that isn't partisan in America's eyes. She deserves the drubbing she's taking over it.
And I'm not going to address the Foley garbage. It's not worth the keystrokes, and I can only say they're barking up the wrong tree so many times a day. The Foley scandal is a dog issue, and one that is liable to bury the Democrats in November with the partisan vitriol they've already thrown in the GOP's direction. But the key to the whole piece is the final line of the story. "The potential for political gain is clear to her." If that isn't the truth. She's playing the game right now by talking about how she's going to "clean up" Congress, and change the drapes in whatever office she desires.
Here she is, dear readers. But remember that this cukoo will only be Speaker if the GOP doesn't go out in November. I hope the party realizes just what is at stake. I believe they do, and I also believe they won't let those that depend on them down.
Sabrina McKinney
I ran across this story on Yahoo News about Nancy Pelosi, and I had to laugh. Is there a real possibility that she could become Speaker of the House? Of course. Anything can happen in an election, but looking at the landscape right now, I think she might want to put her "100 hours" on hold.
Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.
As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats — in her fondest wish — win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.
All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.
"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."
"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.
Pelosi, 66, has been a leader of the House Democrats since 2002. But her political apprenticeship dates to childhood, when her father was mayor of Baltimore.
Now, her political base is about as liberal as it gets, San Francisco. It's a fact that Republicans love to emphasize to voters who might want to visit, but not feel comfortable living there.
Republicans find her an attractive political target, and recently said she would try to "cut-and-run" from Iraq while "launching bitter partisan investigations" of the Bush administration, possibly including impeachment hearings.
A grandmother five times over, Pelosi pops chocolates, shuns coffee and flashes her wit. Asked what offices should would occupy if in the Capitol if she becomes speaker, she laughed. "I'll have any suite I want."
She would, too.
"If the election were held today we'd be successful," Pelosi predicted, claiming that her party's prospects are expanding as the campaign enters its final month. "So many other races are emerging right now," she said.
Democrats must gain 15 seats to regain the majority they lost in 1994, and have candidates in competitive races for 30 or so Republican-held seats, according to strategists in both parties. By contrast, only about a handful of Democratic-controlled seats appear ripe for possible Republican takeover.
Democrats have a pamphlet that lists all their promises and have run through several slogans in the past year or so as they test campaign messages. In recent days, Pelosi said, their prospects have improved by the discovery that former Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida had sent sexually explicit computer messages to teenage male pages.
Not long before sitting down for a lunchtime interview, she turned down a suggestion from Speaker Dennis Hastert that they jointly appoint former FBI Director Louie Freeh to recommend improvements in the page program.
"That was about protecting their majority" rather than the pages, she said dismissively.
Instead, she wants to put Hastert and other Republicans under oath and make them say what they knew of Foley's actions, when they learned it and what they did to stop him.
The potential for political gain is clear to her.
Let's take these one at a time. Day one and two are already done. The House Republicans, led by newly-elected Majority Leader Boehner started that months ago, and are working their way through it. The earmarks legislation, and recently approved voter-accesible database were Republican ideas. The implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations have been met. The DCI was created from it. Many things went into place before the Commission even idssued their final report. The NSA surveillance program and SWIFT were initiated in the wake of 9/11. "Tighter surveillance" of our enemy was among many of the Commission's suggestions.
Many communities have living wage ordinances enacted already, and three--San Francisco, Chicago, and Santa Fe--have the most far-reaching ordinances enacted dealing with a living wage. ANY increase in the minimum wage is a mistake. It helps raise the cost of living. Employers who offer goods and services have to raise the cost of those to the consumer to compensate for their having to comply with the minimum wage laws.
And when it comes to cutting ANY interest rates, I prefer the Federal Reserve to do that, not some yuckety schmuck in Congress doing it. Congress has enough control over our money as it is. Interest rates I'd prefer to leave in the hands of experts, not a fantasizing, power-hungry representative that is counted as one of the most liberal in the Congress; Even the above report points that out. and the same goes for the government negotiating ANYTHING with private industry. Negotiating drug prices? Give me a break. How about passing tort reform so we can lower ALL the costs of health are? Look, lawyers are bloodsuckers. I'll admit the vast majority are, and there are times where I think I work with enough of them. You'll get a handle on skyrocketing costs if you curtail the lawyers in what they seek for damages.
The stem-cell debate I've tried to stay out of. I have an emotional attachment to it. (WARNING: I'm Catholic.) I'm in favor of the uses and research regarding adult stem cells--a method that is proven and being used today. But embryonic stem cells have shown no results, and I don't like the idea of the federal government spending more of our money on endeavors best left to private industry. This is also an attempted swipe at the president for denying federal funds to that research. she acts as if it's illegal, in some convoluted way, to conduct any sort of research on embryonic stem cells. It's not. Certain methods are approved, and the private sector is more than able to find contributors to their research. But the federal government shouldn't be one of them.
And we just knew she was going to hop on the tax-cut repeal bandwagon. They always want to rip away any sort of tax relief from the working people. And, of course, they always pick on the rich. Democrats are so damned hypocritical. They're rich, themselves, but yet they want to punish success. "New," entrepreneurial money isn't right to them because the working man is being shafted somehow. He has a job, and a wage, but they'd rather hit the small businessman by punishing him for his success. If he succeeds, his employees succeed; Their worklife and conditions will improve. If Nancy Pelosi thinks that her tax ideas are going to hurt people like Donald Trump and Bill Gates, or another Ken Lay wanna-be, think again. It's going to end up hurting the entrepreneurs out there looking to start and run their own businesses. And when they take it in the backside from the Congress, he's going to let some of his workers go because he won't be able to pay them. Way to go, Nancy. Way to lower unemployment!
The GOP is right to go after her on her Iraq stance. Just days after disavowing Rep. Murtha's call for a withdrawal from Iraq, she jumped on his bandwagon--hearing the endless calls of the moonbats in the night hyping an issue that isn't partisan in America's eyes. She deserves the drubbing she's taking over it.
And I'm not going to address the Foley garbage. It's not worth the keystrokes, and I can only say they're barking up the wrong tree so many times a day. The Foley scandal is a dog issue, and one that is liable to bury the Democrats in November with the partisan vitriol they've already thrown in the GOP's direction. But the key to the whole piece is the final line of the story. "The potential for political gain is clear to her." If that isn't the truth. She's playing the game right now by talking about how she's going to "clean up" Congress, and change the drapes in whatever office she desires.
Here she is, dear readers. But remember that this cukoo will only be Speaker if the GOP doesn't go out in November. I hope the party realizes just what is at stake. I believe they do, and I also believe they won't let those that depend on them down.
Sabrina McKinney
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home