Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Speaker Pelosi's Agenda

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 02:59 PM
Original message
Speaker Pelosi's Agenda
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 03:06 PM by AtomicKitten
Dems Face a Tug-of-War Within Own Tent
article at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/1...

Excerpts:

If chosen by the Democrats as their leader, Pelosi has pledged that on her first day as speaker she will enact rules to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation," and on the second day she has called on the House to adopt all 41 recommendations made by the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission. Within the first 100 legislative hours, Pelosi has pledged to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, cut interest rates on student loans in half, allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients, expand federal backing of stem cell research, and end subsidies to big oil.

More at: http://www.housedemocrats.gov /



Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, who would chair the Ways and Means Committee's health subcommittee, said he would like to pursue a plan for universal health care but added: "What I want to do and what I think we are able to do are not the same."

Though his own East Bay constituents want Bush's "hide nailed to the door," he thinks it unlikely the House will pursue articles of impeachment, as some in the base have demanded.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, who is chairwoman of the New Democratic Coalition, a group of several dozen moderate Democrats, credits Pelosi with tempering the party's most ideological extremes and unifying members behind a common agenda.

"We are united and joined together by values and by virtue of the fact that we want to not only earn the majority, we want to remain in the majority,'' Tauscher said of the party's pragmatism. "It's important to remember that we're going to have a number of Democrats in seats that had been held by Republicans, and the GOP is going to come roaring back in 2008 and try to knock them off.



"The only thing worse than not taking back the House would be taking it back for one term,'' warned Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, an officer in the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 37 conservative and moderate House Democrats. "I think even the most 'liberal' person in our caucus understands that. There's folks who may not believe that things are going as fast as they want them to go, but they understand we have to be pragmatists."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have a feeling these Blue Dogs are gonna hold the agenda back
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. That might be a good thing.
The progressives and moderates can agree on a lot of things- minimum wage, lobbying reform... the things listed in the article. The more of those that get passed that progressives want and moderates (independents) can support or at least tolerate for the next two years the better.

I think impeachment, and legislating hot issues like unrestricted abortion, removal of accepted gov't/religous transgressions (like removing "Under God" from the pledge, or "In God We Trust" from our currency) etc. are a formula for a one-term Democratic majority.

Perhaps all things in time, but for right now, the legislative priorties of the progressives and independents have mostly been sidelined by the legislative priorities of the neocons and corporations. There are lots of issues that the progressives and moderates can agree on and pass.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. minimum wage? end corruption?
What a far-left wacko! I can see why she needs to be stopped. :eyes:

The rest of that stuff is true. Why spend the political capital on impeachment when we don't have the votes for removal and after the whole procedure, he would only be leaving 6 mo. early anyway? And all that just to have Dick Cheney as president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. Misplaced. Deleted
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 04:16 PM by Ravy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Letter reveals Dems' oversight priorities.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 07:18 PM by AtomicKitten
Raw Story obtains letter detailing Democrat's 'oversight priorities'
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Waxmans_investigative...

Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), the the ranking member of the Government Reform Committee, has long maintained a list of "oversight priorities" that would presumably be implemented under a Democratic majority, according to a letter acquired by RAW STORY.

Waxman enumerated those priorities in correspondence with chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) in February 2005, but as the minority party, Democrats have been unable to advance the agenda.

Citing the uncertain outcome of the November elections, Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the Democratic Government Reform Committee staff, would not comment on which of Waxman's initiatives would take precedence if the Democrats win the House, or on when they would likely appear on the committee agenda.

The letter, however, clearly enumerates Waxman's priorities.

Many of the items included were also listed as part of a fact sheet released by the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee in October 2004. That document notes that, among other omissions, Congress has "failed to investigate... the role of the White House in promoting misleading intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda." Both documents also list grievances relating to detainee abuse, the vice president's role in government contracting and influence over energy regulations, and the outing of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame.

None of these issues have been taken up by the committee under Republican control.

Waxman has served as ranking member on the Government Reform Committee since 1997, during which time it has conducted inquiries into President Bill Clinton's alleged use of his White House Christmas list for political purposes and, more recently, into the nefarious effect diploma mills have on the country. Though the committee has issued over 1000 Clinton-related subpoenas during Waxman's tenure, it has issued barely a dozen in its limited investigations relating to the Bush White House.

In "the last four years," Waxman says, "Congress has failed to conduct meaningful investigations of allegations of serious misconduct involving the Bush administration."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I think these issues should be the first to be addressed.
And here's why - while I admire and support Pelosi's list in the OP, these (Bush crimes) will take longer to investigate and need to be started early. Also, let's face it, exposing those crimes will only help us to hold onto the Congress and, hopefully, regain the White House in '08. And, that is really key to permanent change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I absolutely agree it is critical to do the oversight
the Rs have neglected to do. I believe it will be cathartic for America and could very likely make a critical difference in how the public views the choices in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Exactly. I know I'll feel better about being an American -
and the world might just have some respect for us again.

As for 2008, I think it could play a critical role in a Dem win in the White House and keeping Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Do it and do it right ...
The right wing will just go APE SHIITE if there is even the FIRST level of oversight ... The key is doing it, and doing it right ... Have republicans involved in the process as the minority party, keep the retoric down ... Let the media cover it, but don't make any big comments during or after the hearings - drill them as much as possible, but avoid widesweeping statement or strong charaterizations ... IDEALLY, let the media grab hold of things, say "yeah, it is bad" and leave it at the ...

The Hannity's of the world will go off ... But, part of the process here is going to be showing the non-mutents of the general populace how it is supposed to work, and let them draw their own conclusions ... AND, gotta give the RWF elected officials the chance to actually engage in the process ... IF these elections go off the way they SHOULD, some of the biggest partisan operatives are going to be ejected, the Santorums ... MAYBE these clowns get a little dose of humility that, if the party in power manages that party right, with a strong but even hand, MAYBE they start acting like senators/congressmen instead of freakin 8 year olds ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 19th 2014, 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC