Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Pelosi has a 100 Hour agenda:

Lobbying reform/restrictions
Implementing the 9/11 commission reccomendations
Raising the minimum wage
Medicare drug pricing
stem cell research
student loans
energy policy

Laugh at it you will, but it is an agenda.

Posted by anonymous at November 27, 2006 02:30 PM

You left off "appointing a crooked judge to run the Intelligence Committee."

Posted by Jay Manifold at November 27, 2006 03:51 PM

You left off "appointing a crooked judge to run the Intelligence Committee."

Hey, you have to admit, that's innovative.

OK, well, maybe not for Democrats.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 27, 2006 04:43 PM

Hastings isn't a judge, he was impeached.
Judge is a life title, just like a military rank,
unless you are stripped of it.

That said, the talk about Hastings is
he is controversial. We will find out next week.

Posted by anonymous at November 27, 2006 04:50 PM

I wonder if it is possible to mount a court challenge to Hastings' access to classified information? There is no reason why Florida voters should not elect an impeached judge to Congress. And Pelosi can appoint any Congressman she wants to head intelligence (or any other) committee. But is impeachment a ground to be denied security clearance? Wouldn't that be a hoot -- intelligence committee chair with no classified access!

Posted by Ilya at November 28, 2006 06:24 AM

Calling Hastings "controversial" is an understatement, if not a downright attempt to deflect the facts.

It's useful to point out that if he were in the military or a GS-type position, accepting bribes would pretty much prevent him from ever getting even a "Confidential" clearance.

Ironic.

Posted by Pat C at November 28, 2006 06:48 AM

There is no controversey. It is fact that Hastings was impeached for taking bribes, and that would disqualify anyone that's not an elected official from access to classified data. Lucky for him, he's an elected official and a Democrat. Therefore, he gets a chairmanship and access to classified data.

At this rate, Pelosi may piss off enough of her colleagues to lose her speaker chair before she officially earns it.

Posted by Leland at November 28, 2006 10:44 AM

Anonymous is partly right - there is something of an agenda, though those last two items don't say much. What exactly will the Democrats do with student loans? Give out more? Lower the rates? Tinker with the program to make it easier to get loans and harder to understand how to pay them back?

And what about energy policy? Will the Democrats lower taxes on energy to provide relief for the poor, or raise taxes to reduce environmental effects from use of energy?

The first five items are actually policy ideas, even if they're bad on their face, or bad when the Democrats implement them.

Posted by Anthony at November 28, 2006 11:25 AM

Anonymous: That's not an agenda, that's a list. And it's not exactly a list that can be accomplished in 100 hours or even 100 weeks, which puts it into the category of a dream list. Dreams are good to inspire us as a nation, but we really need some down-to-earth legislative goals, along with a willingness to pass budgets in a timely fashion and without pork. That will ultimately be the measure of Pelosi's leadership. We'll see how she does on it. F

Posted by F at November 28, 2006 11:33 AM

Don't be fooled, the Democrats do have an agenda:

Impeachment proceedings
Pull out of Iraq
Promote homosexuality
Raise the minimum wage
Raise taxes
Wait patiently for next terror attack

Of course, there's a reason they're not publicly running on their real agenda.

Posted by TexasRainmaker at November 28, 2006 12:44 PM

Anthony says: What exactly will the Democrats do with student loans? Give out more? Lower the rates? Tinker with the program to make it easier to get loans and harder to understand how to pay them back?

My guess is make them easier to get, so they can tax them and also make students more beholden to government.

And what about energy policy? Will the Democrats lower taxes on energy to provide relief for the poor, or raise taxes to reduce environmental effects from use of energy?

Let's see, Democrat, lower taxes HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Posted by Mac at November 28, 2006 12:45 PM

It looks like Alcee Hastings may be pulling his name out of contention for the Intelligence Committee spot. Maybe he's much smarter than Pelosi, if no more corrupt.

Posted by Stephen Blum at November 28, 2006 01:41 PM

> Pelosi has a 100 Hour agenda:

And then? Congressional terms run two years.

> student loans

That's another con. Folks who actually benefit from student loans aren't eligible for the tax benefits. Folks who are eligible for said benefits aren't making enough to repay the principle and would have been better off starting their fast food career earlier.

Posted by Andy Freeman at November 28, 2006 02:01 PM

1.) Raise taxes

2.) Raise taxes

and.....um.....

oh, yeah.....

3.) Raise taxes

Posted by N. O'Brain at November 28, 2006 02:33 PM

Re: TexasRainmaker

Here is the Democrat Plan (from their website):

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.
Pull out of Iraq

Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
Impeachment proceedings

Posted by Leland at November 28, 2006 03:09 PM

Democratic agenda:
1. Foreign policy, this bores us. Let's farm it out to the UN.
2. Domestic policy, buy votes with taxpayer money.
3. Provide enough leaks of sensitive data to appease our friends in the press so they'll continue to support us ( as if they'd do anything else).

Posted by Ken Hahn at November 28, 2006 03:30 PM

Can you imagine if Newt had even considered appointing a convicted bribe-taker to the intelligence committee in 1994?

The Dems' big strength is that the media is generally friendly to them, but their resultant big weakness is they tend to think they can get away with anything. Bill "Because I Could" Clinton, need I say more?

Posted by TallDave at November 28, 2006 03:58 PM

Serious point: "anonymous" lists the Dem policy ideas. One of them is "energy policy." Any ideas what the Dem plan on energy policy is? Make us less dependent on foreign oil? OK, how?

More drilling? Nope. Can't do that. Spoils the environment anywhere and everywhere. Except in Saudi Arabia. No environmental degradation there.
More nuclear? You've got to be kidding.
Wind? Not in John Kerry or Teddy K has to look at it.
Conservation? And how much in savings is that going to generate?
Higher fuel prices? That'll encourage switching over from Arab oil (alternative fuels and conservative), but when prices jump by even a penny, the Dems scream about price gouging and demand that we investigate Big Oil.
Ethanol? Corporate welfare for ADM. The Brazilian ethanol buzz is a media hoax. It ain't happening.

So, seriously, what is the Dem energy plan that'll be presented and passed in 100 hours? I don't want goals, I want to know the policy.

And, hey, what about student loans, another "agenda" item? Who are we loaning are students out to? We got plenty! Or, do you mean a "student loan program"? yeah, like that doesn't exist.

We are fighting a war for the survival of western civilization -- voters are obsessed about securing the border -- and the Dems big 100-hour policy agenda is focused on raising the minimum wage and making minor tweaks to the student loan program? Geez, I'm surprised Bill Clinton's big policy agenda item from the 2006 campaign -- school uniforms! -- was left off Pelosi's agenda.

Posted by Rhodium Heart at November 28, 2006 05:43 PM

The last Congress was steeped in corruption. I guess that just whizzed past y'all. I can hear y'all panting and salivating for Alcee Hastings to be appointed.

You know why the Publicans couldn't govern Iraq? Same reason they can't govern here.

How can a party that trashes government day in and day out (your mantra: "government IS the problem") figure out how to govern another country? Is the irony really lost on y'all?

Six Katrina years and y'all want more. Sick...and hypocritical to boot.

Posted by Anon at November 28, 2006 05:46 PM

"How can a party that trashes government day in and day out (your mantra: "government IS the problem") figure out how to govern another country? Is the irony really lost on y'all?"

The problem with Republicans wasn't that they thought "government is the problem," but that they thought infinite government spending without results was the answer.

Your post is fail.

Posted by The False God at November 28, 2006 10:16 PM

(1) Alcee Hastings won't be nominated by Pelosi; sorry to disappoint Jay, Rand etc. ;)

(2) Better that the Democratic Party has a few small good ideas than the Republicans HUGE WRONG IDEAS such as Iraq.

(3) The first thing I want to see from any governing party is competence.

Posted by Offside at November 29, 2006 04:29 AM

Offside says: The first thing I want to see from any governing party is competence.

And you'll never see it. One side or the other will always complain the opposite party is doing things wrong, that's the nature of politics. There are too many people more concerned with staying in power than using their power to better the country at home and abroad.

Posted by Mac at November 29, 2006 06:52 AM

Anon wrote:
The last Congress was steeped in corruption. I guess that just whizzed past y'all.

NEWS FLASH: The Republican's lost Congress because people didn't vote for them. I guess that fact whizzed by you (but then asking you to read what is in front of your eyes and consider it is asking too much).

The problem is the Democrat Congress hasn't even made it into power, and they are already looking to put corrupt individuals in charge. Lucky for Democrats, they have rabid ideologues like yourself who will vote for them without any critical thought. Another break for Democrats, they have a few new Congressmen willing to buck leadership and point out the asses (Murtha and Hastings) in the room.

Posted by Leland at November 29, 2006 07:11 AM

The democrats are very competent.

They believe in government, so they make it a priority.

They get good people in Jamie Witt not Mike Brown,
They put in bipartisan people Cohen not Rumsfeld
They balance budgets

Posted by anonymous at November 30, 2006 11:07 AM

> They balance budgets

Oh really? When was the last time a Dem congress passed a balanced budget?

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 1, 2006 09:39 PM

"The democrats are very competent."

Like Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale? Competent at finger painting or comppetent at bridge crossing?

Better not order an extra helping of Malaise next time.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 2, 2006 09:28 AM

Post a comment