Nancy Pelosi

[bascule]

I'm a registered Democrat. I'm also a registered Democrat who's dissatisfied with Nancy Pelosi. After having been promised investigations into the many scandals which have occured under the Bush administration, we've since been informed that those investigations aren't going to take place.

 

Is anyone else dissatisfied with Pelosi backtracking on her original promises?

[Pangloss]

What promises are you disatisfied about?

 

I think she's a mixed bag so far. She stood her ground on what would have been two controversial (unethical) chairmanship appointments (Hastings and Jefferson). Those appointments would have been pretty hypocritical given all the fuss about Republican ethics and reforming the House. But she was under a LOT (and I mean a *LOT*) of political pressure to make those appointments, and deserves serious credit for not making them.

 

That having been said, I continue to be disapointed with her grandstanding and demogogery on Iraq. She continues to portray issues as if they are domestic political issues rather than international realpolitik issues. For example, she said:

 

The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.

 

First of all they're not going "into harm's way" for another 8-9 months, and Congress will have ample opportunity to set (or not set) funding on that deployment before then. And second, you can't *not fund* a deployment that hasn't been announced, so it's a ridiculous statement to begin with. What exactly did Bush stop her from doing? It's just nonsense.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she doesn't have a valid position on Iraq. I'm just pointing out that some of her positions, from time to time, cross the line in terms of rhetoric. She plays to the left-wing bleachers.

[Sisyphus]

I agree, she does have a demagogical streak, but I wouldn't call it any worse than any of the past few speakers. Frankly, I've been surprised at the degree she's proven herself NOT full of hot air, which is kind of what I was expecting from the rather vague Democratic platform of the past few years. But really, I just can't help rooting for her simply because of all the shameless and offensive efforts to demonize her. A lot of people were betting big that Americans would automatically hate a powerful, liberal woman from San Francisco, and I'm delighted it backfired.

[ecoli]

Some of her actions seem hypocritical to me, since she says she's a dem. Like that whole deal with the golf course and the non-enforcing of endagered species laws. And what about her exclusion of US Somoa on the wage bill?

 

What, she can't be corrupt because she's a woman? as far as I'm concerned, this kind of stuff hasn't attracted enough press and is not being investigated properly.

[bascule]

What promises are you disatisfied about?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/06/AR2006050601336_pf.html

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview last week that a Democratic House would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, "You never know where it leads to."

 

Whatever happened to those?

[Martin]

I'm a registered Democrat. I'm also a registered Democrat who's dissatisfied with Nancy Pelosi. After having been promised investigations into the many scandals which have occured under the Bush administration, we've since been informed that those investigations aren't going to take place.

 

Is anyone else dissatisfied with Pelosi backtracking on her original promises?

 

Back in November

Robert Reich had a piece in his blog that gave advice to the Democratic Party. My wife read it and I thought it was so obvious that I never bothered to so I can only give a secondhand paraphrase.

 

the majority has a choice of spending their energy on

 

A. investigating and punishing the cronies, or

B. saving the country

 

(getting out of the stupid war, reversing subsidies to the rich, controlling the deficit and debt, rebuilding international goodwill and cooperation, or whatever YOU think salvaging the situation entails---I don't know what Robert Reich had in mind)

 

anything that isnt necessary to the main goal is a dangerous distraction, in this view. one has to get the main priorities straight. I think that is what he was saying back in November. Perhaps the advice of such wise old heads as Reich has prevailed with Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership.

[Amos Schuman]

Whatever happened to those?

 

Presumably 100 Hours comes first.

[bascule]

anything that isnt necessary to the main goal is a dangerous distraction, in this view. one has to get the main priorities straight. I think that is what he was saying back in November. Perhaps the advice of such wise old heads as Reich has prevailed with Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership.

 

I guess we'll have to see what happens when Bush gets his veto stamp warmed up. I'm certainly expecting that on the minimum wage bill.

[Martin]

I guess we'll have to see what happens when Bush gets his veto stamp warmed up. I'm certainly expecting that on the minimum wage bill.

 

I think you raise a serious tactical issue

when it comes to horsetrading politics do you stand a better chance of getting your bills thru if you first stop everything and try to impeach bush and then, if you succeed, get the bills thru

 

or do you stand a better chance if you retain impeachment as a possibility, but don't go for it directly, and try to get enough cooperation (on that basis) from friends in the minority party to get the bills thru

 

I don't know. I generally assume you have more political smarts than I. and I am not watching events too closely at the moment. I guess it is a tactical issue we are talking about-----whether a wave of investigation prosecution and impeachment effort would advance the larger goals at this time. Certainly the veto possibility is a consideration.

 

Maybe some people on the GOP side will go talk to bush and tell him not to veto minimum wage (or shit will hit fan) and threaten to vote with the majority to over-ride, if he vetos, and maybe he will NOT veto. sorry to be so vague. ordinarily I simply read your analysis and don't comment.

In this case I thought I would put in a word for Pelosi if she is exercising restraint----it could be well-calculated.

[CPL.Luke]

yeah if bush starts vetoing the democrats ils left and right it would make an impeachment proceeding far more practical and popular.

[Pangloss]

I don't think he'll veto minimum wage, both because there's enough votes to override that, and because it's been generally accepted for a while now that an increase was going to happen (not that I agree with it).

 

He'll certainly veto the stem cell research bill.

 

Regarding impeachment, I specifically heard Pelosi in two interviews before the election take impeachment off the table. The only people talking about impeachment these days are the politically irrelevent ABB crowd.

 

She's there to do a job. Wondering why she hasn't turned the country blue overnight is pretty silly.

[ParanoiA]

Personally, I wish they would go through with the impeachment process. I want to see the democrats make asses of themselves right out of the gate.

 

We know they're going to do nothing on illegal immigration - the democrats prefer illegal immigrants to stay illegal and get paid crap wages with no benefits rather than to be legal and earn the laws and protections the rest of us in this forum enjoy.

 

We also know they're not going to get out of the "stupid war" because not even the democrats are stupid enough to cut and run and screw the Iraqis for a 2nd time. Also, they aren't going to do anything different because there's nothing to be done. All of the talk by Pelosi and friends was just echoing the bad mood of the country. They don't know what to do either.

 

Reversing subsidies to the rich, I definitely expect. Must punish the employers of the country for employing us - those bastards! Of course, I'm sure Pelosi doesn't care too much about the small businesses that these tax hikes will effect. Anyone here start a small business recently? If you have, then you may have noticed how the government seems to be the last entity to give a rat's ass whether you make it or not as they take half of your money.

 

But I'm sure Pelosi is just doing what her pop culture constituents want her to do - go after corporations, oil companies, wal-mart - to hell with all of the small businesses that go down in the wake. They're just the life blood of the country, and arguably what our founding fathers had in mind when they discussed business and capitalism.

 

International goodwill? When did we have that? Before or after 9/11? I'll tell you...before we became the superpower. That's when we had that. And we won't have it again until we're not.

 

So, to me, there's not a lot for her to do. She's got plenty of time to impeach Bush. I think she knows she's full of crap and the party will get their asses handed to them. So, she's going to make excuses and save herself from an ugly entry in our children's future history books.

[Sisyphus]

Personally, I wish they would go through with the impeachment process. I want to see the democrats make asses of themselves right out of the gate.

 

They won't. They'll have low-profile investigations (with the ever-present threat that they will become high-profile), but there won't be an impeachment. I think they realize they, and the country as a whole, is better off trying to fix things than bickering with each other and causing even more polarization. Besides, impeaching Bush would ruin a perfectly good opportunity to make the Clinton impeachment look all the sillier in comparison. No, if that level of arrogance comes, it will only be after being in power for a few terms.

 

We know they're going to do nothing on illegal immigration - the democrats prefer illegal immigrants to stay illegal and get paid crap wages with no benefits rather than to be legal and earn the laws and protections the rest of us in this forum enjoy.

 

???

 

We also know they're not going to get out of the "stupid war" because not even the democrats are stupid enough to cut and run and screw the Iraqis for a 2nd time. Also, they aren't going to do anything different because there's nothing to be done. All of the talk by Pelosi and friends was just echoing the bad mood of the country. They don't know what to do either.

 

I disagree. I think we'll have military bases there indefinitely, but we'll be out of the streets by 2008, ready or not.

 

Reversing subsidies to the rich, I definitely expect. Must punish the employers of the country for employing us - those bastards! Of course, I'm sure Pelosi doesn't care too much about the small businesses that these tax hikes will effect. Anyone here start a small business recently? If you have, then you may have noticed how the government seems to be the last entity to give a rat's ass whether you make it or not as they take half of your money.

 

Have you started a small business recently?

 

International goodwill? When did we have that? Before or after 9/11? I'll tell you...before we became the superpower. That's when we had that. And we won't have it again until we're not.

 

No, Islamic terrorists were never fond of us (though they've readily accepted our help in the past). But Islamic terrorists /= the world, and just because something is bad doesn't mean it can't get worse. Are you honestly claiming that America's standing in the eyes of the world hasn't changed for the worse in the last few years? Even Bush realizes this. His rhetoric has softened a lot recently.

[Amos Schuman]

I don't think he'll veto minimum wage, both because there's enough votes to override that, and because it's been generally accepted for a while now that an increase was going to happen (not that I agree with it).

 

Where'd you get the idea that there's enough votes to override the veto?

[ParanoiA]

Have you started a small business recently?

 

Actually yes, which is why I'm particularly pissed about it now.

 

Are you honestly claiming that America's standing in the eyes of the world hasn't changed for the worse in the last few years? Even Bush realizes this. His rhetoric has softened a lot recently.

 

No, I'm not claiming that. But I see it as an arguable necessity of conflict. If our bombing of Germany in WWII were to piss off other countries, I doubt we'd do it any different. I'm not saying it's necessary to piss off half the world, but I'm willing to accept that it shouldn't impact or alter our resolve.

[bascule]

I think you raise a serious tactical issue

when it comes to horsetrading politics do you stand a better chance of getting your bills thru if you first stop everything and try to impeach bush and then, if you succeed, get the bills thru

 

President Pelosi?

[Amos Schuman]

President Pelosi?

 

How do you end up with President Pelosi? Even if you had all your Democrats and both independents in line you'd need twenty six Republican senators to vote to strip the President and Vice President. All the Republicans need is one Democrat and Joe Lieberman to confirm a new body for any resulting Vice President vacancy.

[Pangloss]

Where'd you get the idea that there's enough votes to override the veto?

 

You're joking, right?

 

I dunno, maybe the fact that 82 House Republicans voted for it. Or maybe it could be the very that virtually every Senate Republican voted on some form of increase the minimum wage over the last three years. Or maybe it could be the fact that Senate Republicans are reeling from that 2006 election and know very well that MW is something they're going to have to cave in on.

 

Yeah I can't imagine where I got that crazy idea....

 

But I don't even know why you're asking, since it's clear the President plans to sign it. Especially since the Finance Committee has already added his requested tax incentives for small businesses affected by the MW increase, which the Senate and most of the House (including Harry Reid) agree with.

[bascule]

How do you end up with President Pelosi?

 

Apparently you missed the part where the thread is about how they're not going to have investigations, much less impeachment proceedings

[Amos Schuman]

You're joking, right?

 

C'mon, Pang. You should know that Republican Senate support for this is far from clear.

 

I dunno, maybe the fact that 82 House Republicans voted for it.

 

Which is the House. It still needs to clear the Senate, the only thing the President needs is 34 Republicans willing to pull a Reid and offer an alternative hybridization to block an override. If they can managed 40 votes, they can block consideration on the first run period.

 

Or maybe it could be the very that virtually every Senate Republican voted on some form of increase the minimum wage over the last three years.

 

Which predicts what? They can plausibly look at what Reid was able to do and calculate that they can vote against this measure.

 

Or maybe it could be the fact that Senate Republicans are reeling from that 2006 election and know very well that MW is something they're going to have to cave in on.

 

It's been three months since the election, I think it's a bit early to start deciding what fight the Republicans have a stomach for.

 

Yeah I can't imagine where I got that crazy idea....

 

Me neither, especially since it's early in 2007, the next Congressional elections are two years away, and the majority of House Republicans still voted against the minimum wage increase as the Democrats presented it, the Republicans hold more than 34 and 40 seats in the Senate, and the President still has his veto and bully pulpit.

 

But I don't even know why you're asking, since it's clear the President plans to sign it. Especially since the Finance Committee has already added his requested tax incentives for small businesses affected by the MW increase, which the Senate and most of the House (including Harry Reid) agree with.

 

It's not clear yet, because a final version hasn't been reported out of conference. Assuming any of the tax relief amendments survive, the Administration was clear on the 10th and the 19th that we can expect it's support. But then again, the Administration backed HR 5970 last year as well using the same reasoning. That said, if the Senate version fails and Pelosi prevails, it is very uncertain as to whether or not the House version will pass in the Senate, let alone survive a veto.

[Pangloss]

C'mon, Pang. You should know that Republican Senate support for this is far from clear.

 

Of course. I'm merely stating my opinion, as are you. I don't think they want minimum wage to increase at all. But as you know in 2005 they introduced a countermeasure that did exactly that. This is about political realities, not desires.

 

 

Which is the House. It still needs to clear the Senate, the only thing the President needs is 34 Republicans willing to pull a Reid and offer an alternative hybridization to block an override. If they can managed 40 votes, they can block consideration on the first run period.

 

That's certainly another way of looking at it.

 

This morning the Senate voted 54-43 in favor of the House bill (without the small business amendment). That's not enough to pass, much less override a veto, so we wait for the amended version. Democrats are certainly blustering about the amendment, but in the end they'll approve it because it accomplishes their goal and because most of them (and most people) see it (the amendment) as a reasonable compromise.

 

 

It's been three months since the election, I think it's a bit early to start deciding what fight the Republicans have a stomach for.

 

You might want to tell them that before they give away your farm. I think the horse is gone and the barn door is already on the auction block.

 

But that is, of course, merely my opinion. You may think as you like.

[Pangloss]

Well I was wrong about minimum wage. The vote on the amendment didn't just fail, it failed badly. I think what must have happened is that Republicans realized the media was looking the other way (Iraq hearings) and decided that MW was a fight they could win after all. Quite surprising, for me and many other observers in Washington.

 

It'll be interesting to see if this is a sign of how things go with the other 100 Hours legislation.