NationStates Jolt Archive

Love them, hate them, these are the Nancy Pelosi's plans for her first hundred hours as Speaker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html)--not days, hours. (I'm pretty sure you'll know where I fall on this.)

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.
Hmmm. Openness in government. Stronger homeland security. Investment in stem-cell research. Raising the minimum wage. Paygo. Yeah, those are some crazy-ass liberal ideas.

Now if she can get the Senate to go along, Dubya might have to break out the veto pen a few more times.

Take the poll.

Funny thing about counting chickens ....:p

Speaker Pelosi....you crack me up .

Love them, hate them, these are the Nancy Pelosi's plans for her first hundred hours as Speaker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html)--not days, hours. (I'm pretty sure you'll know where I fall on this.)


Hmmm. Openness in government. Stronger homeland security. Investment in stem-cell research. Raising the minimum wage. Paygo. Yeah, those are some crazy-ass liberal ideas.

Now if she can get the Senate to go along, Dubya might have to break out the veto pen a few more times.

Take the poll.

Not that I'm knocking these ideas, I agree with all of them. But these are campaign promises. They have little if any basis in reality. Not necessarily because she doesn't want to do these things, but like all politicians, just because she wants to doesn't mean she can. Or that she can't be forced to drop some of her priorities to pursue others. Or that large corporate campaign contributors can't convince her otherwise. :p

She's all ready to hit the ground running, isn't she? :D

Well, more power to her, but she's still got Mt. Hastert -- excuse me, I mean Mr. Hastert -- to get around. He may be a more difficult obstacle to remove than she thinks or we would like.

Funny thing about counting chickens ....:p

Speaker Pelosi....you crack me up .

Well, all I know is this--the NRCC and the RNC are dropping money in districts Democrats have no business being competitive in. Idaho. Nebraska. Rural Florida. Hell, a Democrat is winning Katherine Harris's old seat right now, and that district is something like 58% registered Republican. And Harris isn't evenr running.

And because they're dropping money in those places, they don't have as much to spend in places where they could either pick up Democratic seats or defend even tighter races.

A month ago, even someone as partisan as I am thought Speaker Pelosi was a pipe dream. Now? It's more likely than Majority Leader Reid (though both are distinct possibilities).

An increasing number of Republican pundits and campaign strategists are coming out and saying that the Foley mess is likely to cost the RNC the House and maybe even both chambers.

Not guaranteed, but music to my ears, nonetheless.

Well the world could end ...but I am kinda hoping it doesnt...

Personally I'd like to find a way to throw all of them out and start fresh .

See even I have pipe dreams .

Not that I'm knocking these ideas, I agree with all of them. But these are campaign promises. They have little if any basis in reality. Not necessarily because she doesn't want to do these things, but like all politicians, just because she wants to doesn't mean she can. Or that she can't be forced to drop some of her priorities to pursue others. Or that large corporate campaign contributors can't convince her otherwise. :p

They have as much basis as Gingrich's Contract on America--I mean, Contract with America. Some will get passed, some won't, some will die in the Senate, some will get vetoed. The point of this thing is to let voters know that the Democrats represent real change and a positive agenda, as opposed to the Republican agenda of rubber-stamping the Bush administration and covering up bad deeds and corruption.

Love them, hate them, these are the Nancy Pelosi's plans for her first hundred hours as Speaker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html)--not days, hours. (I'm pretty sure you'll know where I fall on this.)


Hmmm. Openness in government. Stronger homeland security. Investment in stem-cell research. Raising the minimum wage. Paygo. Yeah, those are some crazy-ass liberal ideas.

Now if she can get the Senate to go along, Dubya might have to break out the veto pen a few more times.

Take the poll.

i love that phrase "speaker of the house nancy pelosi"

i dont think theyll get a veto proof majority but it would be great to force bush to veto all these things. just to show where the republicans stand on issues that are important to average people.

Well, all I know is this--the NRCC and the RNC are dropping money in districts Democrats have no business being competitive in. Idaho.

semi-shameful admission - i might actually vote here, just to fuck with the republicans.

anarchists of ns, i ask your forgiveness.

They have as much basis as Gingrich's Contract on America--I mean, Contract with America. Some will get passed, some won't, some will die in the Senate, some will get vetoed. The point of this thing is to let voters know that the Democrats represent real change and a positive agenda, as opposed to the Republican agenda of rubber-stamping the Bush administration and covering up bad deeds and corruption.

And dirty dirty sex. :)

The reason the polls are almost always wrong and the political operatives are always panicky..is they all think Americans are all dumb ass hicks to be lead by their noses.

Like most people cant smell the stink comming from both sides ?


Let them keep at it ...I may get my wish sooner than later .

Love them, hate them, these are the Nancy Pelosi's plans for her first hundred hours as Speaker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html)--not days, hours. (I'm pretty sure you'll know where I fall on this.)


Hmmm. Openness in government. Stronger homeland security. Investment in stem-cell research. Raising the minimum wage. Paygo. Yeah, those are some crazy-ass liberal ideas.

Now if she can get the Senate to go along, Dubya might have to break out the veto pen a few more times.

Take the poll.

Bush vetoing? He'll use a signing statement and that'll be that.

Bush vetoing? He'll use a signing statement and that'll be that.

You know, passing a law outlawing signing statements might be a good addition to the list.

semi-shameful admission - i might actually vote here, just to fuck with the republicans.

anarchists of ns, i ask your forgiveness.I forgive you. I'm a bad anarchist - I vote, too. :)

semi-shameful admission - i might actually vote here, just to fuck with the republicans.

anarchists of ns, i ask your forgiveness.
Sometimes you've got to take one for the team...though I guess that really doesn't apply here. Well, take one anyway, for me? ;)

:shudder: "Speaker Pelosi" gives me heebie jeebies more or less equivalent to those I got from "Speaker Gingrich." I haven't figured out which is the obverse and which is the reverse side of that same coin. I have no issues with the 100-hour plan items, just with the fact that she's throwing great ideas out there designed to fail. She's using this 100-hour plan to make the President look like shit -- well, he already looks like shit. It's just the start of 2 years of nothing getting done while the Democrats try to create ammunition to expand their majorities in 2008 and hopefully get a Democrat in the White House.

Two years of waste in order to recreate 1993-1994. Or worse, 1977-1981. And it starts with a 100-hour plan.

You know, passing a law outlawing signing statements might be a good addition to the list.

I agree.

:shudder: "Speaker Pelosi" gives me heebie jeebies more or less equivalent to those I got from "Speaker Gingrich." I haven't figured out which is the obverse and which is the reverse side of that same coin. I have no issues with the 100-hour plan items, just with the fact that she's throwing great ideas out there designed to fail. She's using this 100-hour plan to make the President look like shit -- well, he already looks like shit. It's just the start of 2 years of nothing getting done while the Democrats try to create ammunition to expand their majorities in 2008 and hopefully get a Democrat in the White House.

Two years of waste in order to recreate 1993-1994. Or worse, 1977-1981. And it starts with a 100-hour plan.
Even if all we have is gridlock for the next two years, it's an improvement over what we have now. Think of a Democratic House as being the embodiment of the Hippocratic oath for politics--first, do no harm.

You know, passing a law outlawing signing statements might be a good addition to the list.

by signing this bill into law, it shall in no way be taken to undermine my god-given supreme authority to make shit up about what laws mean without any interference from that pesky legislature.

-dubya

Even if all we have is gridlock for the next two years, it's an improvement over what we have now. Think of a Democratic House as being the embodiment of the Hippocratic oath for politics--first, do no harm.

Meh, it's the merry-go-round of politics. We vote for "The Others" because they couldn't possibly be any worse than "These Guys." All the shit I hear now about how Democrats in all three spots would be soooo much better is almost exactly the same shit I heard in 93 and 94 about the Republicans.

Pledgeria's Rule of Politics: It never gets better. Just different.

Meh, it's the merry-go-round of politics. We vote for "The Others" because they couldn't possibly be any worse than "These Guys." All the shit I hear now about how Democrats in all three spots would be soooo much better is almost exactly the same shit I heard in 93 and 94 about the Republicans.

Pledgeria's Rule of Politics: It never gets better. Just different.

As partisan as I am, I'm actually a fan of a divided government. It forces compromise. My favorite scenario is a Democratic House and Presidency, and a tight majority (think 51-49, 52-48) Republican Senate. A single party in charge of all three invites corruption and bad government and extremism.

As partisan as I am, I'm actually a fan of a divided government. It forces compromise. My favorite scenario is a Democratic House and Presidency, and a tight majority (think 51-49, 52-48) Republican Senate. A single party in charge of all three invites corruption and bad government and extremism.

I concur. :D

I concur. :DSee? I'm a reasonable liberal, no matter how I'm painted by some on this board. ;)

Sometimes you've got to take one for the team...

Wasn't that in one of Mark Foley's IMs? :confused:

Wasn't that in one of Mark Foley's IMs? :confused:

Heh. I remember Butters asking "what the hell kind of team is this, anyway?"

See? I'm a reasonable liberal, no matter how I'm painted by some on this board. ;)

LOL. And as much as I hate the two-party system, I understand that the Constitutional changes required to make a multi-party system are a looooong way off. So, I can come up with the least offensive two-party scenario, which is split gov't.

semi-shameful admission - i might actually vote here, just to fuck with the republicans.

anarchists of ns, i ask your forgiveness.

of course in addition to still believing the old line about the illegality of voting if it could really change anything, i'm not entirely convinced that the republicans will even let the democrats win this one - no matter what the numbers really say. it'll probably depend on what they feel they can get away with.

she might as well add ride on a unicorn while giving every citizen $100.

she might as well add ride on a unicorn while giving every citizen $100.

LOL. You made me choke on my smoothie.

a.. UHHHH FUCKIN CRAZY FROTHY MOUTH CRAZY FUCKIG COMMIE LIBRERAL RADICAL TRAAITOOOOOOOOOORRRRR YYYEHWAAAAAAW

They sound like good ideas. Of course, as someone already mentioned, they are nothing more than campaign promises and thus are trustworthy only with a grain of salt. However, I've all but decided to vote Democrat in the next election. It hurts me because I still highly believe that the Democrats and Republicans fall into the same pattern once they seize power, but I havent see any decent third-party candidates either.

LOL. You made me choke on my smoothie.

well its true, is anyone else reminded of a middle school election where the person running for the middle school president is promising free ice cream on fridays, cut the school day in half, and doing away with homework?

well its true, is anyone else reminded of a middle school election where the person running for the middle school president is promising free ice cream on fridays, cut the school day in half, and doing away with homework?

Oh, believe me, read my previous posts and you'll see I agree. I just didn't put in words that made me try to laugh and drink a smoothie at the same time. :p

The Speaker can make legislation?

How odd.

The Speaker can make legislation?

How odd.
Well, she can ram it through the House, and just as the President has a honeymoon, so does a new Speaker. She'll be able to get her caucus to vote for damn near anything at the beginning, and since she'll have the majority, she'll get it that far. What happens in the Senate and conference and with the President is another matter, but she's talking about what she can get done primarily.

The Speaker can make legislation?

How odd.

In the sense of "All my li'l Democratic/Republican bitches will vote for this or else face my wrath," yes the Speaker can drive legislation. Your sarcasm to the contrary.

(snip)
Damn, you beat me to it. I need to type faster. Or fix my sticky-from-spilled-smoothie keyboard. :p

can I pretend Nancy didn't say it? like say it was someone where the mention of the name alone doesn't make me want to vomit?

(btw yes, I have spoken to her over the phone, and yes I hate her, however, she didn't say much that I could object to here.... I can still hate her as a person right?)

Well, she can ram it through the House, and just as the President has a honeymoon, so does a new Speaker. She'll be able to get her caucus to vote for damn near anything at the beginning, and since she'll have the majority, she'll get it that far. What happens in the Senate and conference and with the President is another matter, but she's talking about what she can get done primarily.

That's completely alien to me as somebody used to the British Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker there is an MP who accepts a bipartisan role, supports or promotes neither side in a vote or debate, fairly presides over sittings of the Commons, and can only vote if there's a tie.

I think I prefer it like that.

can I pretend Nancy didn't say it? like say it was someone where the mention of the name alone doesn't make me want to vomit?

(btw yes, I have spoken to her over the phone, and yes I hate her, however, she didn't say much that I could object to here.... I can still hate her as a person right?)

Yeah, you can hate her as a person. :) Some people with good ideas are just completely unlikeable. You ever listened to Randi Rhodes? She brings up a lot of good messages, but every time she opens her mouth I just want to punch it.

That's completely alien to me as somebody used to the British Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker there is an MP who accepts a bipartisan role, supports or promotes neither side in a vote or debate, fairly presides over sittings of the Commons, and can only vote if there's a tie.

I think I prefer it like that.

Sounds like a good plan to me, but we Americans don't like "bipartisans" or "compromise" these days. Used to be bipartisanship meant "you get some of what you want, we get some of what we want, we both win." Now bipartisanship means "We were forced to give up some of our agenda to you. You're hindering our efforts in the power struggle. BE GONE!"

Yay, progress.

Yeah, you can hate her as a person. :) Some people with good ideas are just completely unlikeable. You ever listened to Randi Rhodes? She brings up a lot of good messages, but every time she opens her mouth I just want to punch it.

yes, it's just like that! you understand.

I see now! There's a question mark after the first one, and an exclamation point after the second!

That's completely alien to me as somebody used to the British Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker there is an MP who accepts a bipartisan role, supports or promotes neither side in a vote or debate, fairly presides over sittings of the Commons, and can only vote if there's a tie.

I think I prefer it like that.

We use speaker in an entirely different way then you do.

Think of the speaker of the house (and the majority leader of the senate) the closest equivilant to your prime minister.

The head honcho of the majority party (speaker of the house is the high person of the majority party in the house of representatives, and senate majority leader is the party head of the majority party of the senate) in each house. While the speaker of the house, and the senate majority leader may be different parties, not necessarily, see right now where both the senate majority leader and the speaker of the house are both republican, as republicans are in the majority in both houses.

Pelosi will, if the democrats take the house, be speaker of the house.

The tie breaking vote in the US goes to the vice president, but only in the event of a tie.

You know, passing a law outlawing signing statements might be a good addition to the list.
Of course, Dubya could just use another signing statement to interpret that bill out of existence...

Funny story: Congress passed a bill saying that the Justice Department had to alert Congress every time Bush used a signing statement to reinterpret law. Bush immediately tacked on a signing statement that obviated the requirement.

Pelosi will, if the democrats take the house, be speaker of the house.

And will be third in line of succession to be President behind Cheney. That gives Republicans douche chills and keeps them awake at night.

And will be third in line of succession to be President behind Cheney. That gives Republicans douche chills and keeps them awake at night.

if you want to be nitpicky and technical, she'd be SECOND in the line of succession.

First is cheney. "line of succession" begins with the first to be...well...in line for the presidency. Bush is obviously not in the line of succession as he is not in line for the presidency. He is the president.

if you want to be nitpicky and technical, she'd be SECOND in the line of succession.

First is cheney. "line of succession" begins with the first to be...well...in line for the presidency. Bush is obviously not in the line of succession as he is not in line for the presidency. He is the president.True, true. I guess I meant "third most powerful?" Either way it makes Republicans nervous.

Of course, it ought to make Dubya and Cheney happy. No way would the Republicans in the Senate vote to remove them from office in impeachment trials, since it would mean President Pelosi.

True, true. I guess I meant "third most powerful?" Either way it makes Republicans nervous.

Of course, it ought to make Dubya and Cheney happy. No way would the Republicans in the Senate vote to remove them from office in impeachment trials, since it would mean President Pelosi.

If it actually happens that dems take the senate, who's the SML then? Has that been decided yet? It's Frist right now isn't it (after DeLay stepped down)?

Even if Cheney died, they'd just reanimate him again. :p

Even if Cheney died, they'd just reanimate him again. :p

Not gonna happen. Cheney's contract with Satan CLEARLY allows for another 100 years of continual existance provided he bathe in the blood of teenage virgin girls at least once a season.

and by saying "teenage virgin girls" I probably tripped some interesting filter software here at the good ole DoJ.

If it actually happens that dems take the senate, who's the SML then? Has that been decided yet? It's Frist right now isn't it (after DeLay stepped down)?DeLay was Majority Leader in the House, and John Boehner took over for him. Frist is Senate Majority Leader and is retiring, so he was gone anyway. If the Dems win the House, Harry Reid of Nevada will be the majority leader. I don't know who's in line to take over for Frist, though it's likely there would be a struggle. Some have suggested that Lott might regain the spot, having done sufficient penance for his Strom Thurmond moment. They'll be doing some reshuffling regardless, since Santorum is the number three guy and he's toast in Pennsylvania.

DeLay was Majority Leader in the House, and John Boehner took over for him. Frist is Senate Majority Leader and is retiring, so he was gone anyway. If the Dems win the House, Harry Reid of Nevada will be the majority leader. I don't know who's in line to take over for Frist, though it's likely there would be a struggle. Some have suggested that Lott might regain the spot, having done sufficient penance for his Strom Thurmond moment. They'll be doing some reshuffling regardless, since Santorum is the number three guy and he's toast in Pennsylvania.

Right right, DeLay was in the House, Frist is and has been SML, and Read will be the Dem SML if they take it. Thanks for the refresher.

And yeah, kinda funny watching what happened to Santorum.

and by saying "teenage virgin girls" I probably tripped some interesting filter software here at the good ole DoJ.

Nah, it's probably shut down from overloading at "teenage virgin boy page"

Nah, it's probably shut down from overloading at "teenage virgin boy page"

Perhaps I should clarify.

I work FOR the USAO. The computer I am currently sitting at and typing on is property of the DoJ.

Perhaps I should clarify.

I work FOR the USAO. The computer I am currently sitting at and typing on is property of the DoJ.
And you haven't gotten that hand on your shoulder and the request to come quietly yet? :eek:

Perhaps I should clarify.

I work FOR the USAO. The computer I am currently sitting at and typing on is property of the DoJ.

Oh, you have nothing to worry about then. Aren't all the DoJ computers set up to surf porn so you'll always know what your bosses are watching? :p

If that bitch becomes speaker I'll cry, or move to Canada. I havent figured out which yet.

See......now i envision her throwing the chairs of the Senate at G.W just like the Emperor did to Yoda.

See......now i envision her throwing the chairs of the Senate at G.W just like the Emperor did to Yoda.

Wait, but isn't Yoda the good guy?

See......now i envision her throwing the chairs of the Senate at G.W just like the Emperor did to Yoda.

Apparently he thinks Pelosi can wreck the country more than the Caliphate of Dumbfuckistan has been doing :D

On a tangent, why people claim Bush is Vader or Palpatine is beyond me. If anything, Bush is Jar-Jar Binks; a dull-witted bumpkin who got towed into a position where he could put the true evil (Cheney) into power.

If that bitch becomes speaker I'll cry, or move to Canada. I havent figured out which yet.

Man am I going to hold you to this.

Man am I going to hold you to this.

What I find greatly funny is that when bush came to power the republicans took great delight in taunting dems who made similar statements asking why they weren't in canada.

I'm looking forward for it being my turn.

Oh! Oh! Nazz! We might even be able to pull out the "if you don't like it in america, leave!" line!

What I find greatly funny is that when bush came to power the republicans took great delight in taunting dems who made similar statements asking why they weren't in canada.

I'm looking forward for it being my turn.

Oh! Oh! Nazz! We might even be able to pull out the "if you don't like it in america, leave!" line!I tell you what--if we do win, I'll sure be glad I didn't head out to the islands like I considered doing.

An increasing number of Republican pundits and campaign strategists are coming out and saying that the Foley mess is likely to cost the RNC the House and maybe even both chambers.

Not guaranteed, but music to my ears, nonetheless.
Gotta watch out for those polling booths from the Twilight Zone.

Voting Machine Controversy (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm)

Will exit polls once again not reflect the reality?

Democrats might DIEBOLDly?

Democrats might DIEBOLDly?

You mean Democrats might also get a maximum $10k contribution from Diebold for their support of Diebold voting machines, too?

You mean Democrats might also get a maximum $10k contribution from Diebold for their support of Diebold voting machines, too?
Cute. Now run along and let the grownups talk. :p