Pelosi readying a pre-emptive House agenda

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 11/22/6 | Zachary Coile

[ichabod1]

I think it goes back to FDRs first hundred hours. It doesn't mean anything but a burst of activity at the beginning of a new session.

[GraniteStateConservative]

She isn't doing anything that Newt didn't do in 1995 and she didn't nominate Murtha for anything. Murtha wanted to be Majority Leader and Murtha was a big reason Pelosi got to where she is in Dem House leadership, as her campaign manager. Pelosi was just being loyal by supporting him vocally. She didn't really try that hard to get him elected Majority Leader.

[conservative blonde]

I'd like to take her finger and stick it up her nose.

[agincourt1415]

That is the beauty of being a Democrat, they truly believe they have a mandate. Personally, I think Pelosi is in for a SURPRISE, the Democrats they elected are moderates and slightly right of center.

Like General Robert E. Lee said, "There may be an opportunity here."

[PhiKapMom]

Senator Inhofe has already come out and said that anything from Boxer on the environment is DOA! Would expect to see the same thing on anything obnoxious out of the House and Pelosi but have a hunch she is going to have a hard time getting it through the House with the blue dogs!

[Senator Goldwater]

I wonder if people remember that one of the republican reforms was to cut down on the hours spent on the floor of the house, to allow the members more time to be with their families and to get home to listen to their constituents.

---

Exactly.

The Congress shouldn't be in session past tax day, in any year.

[darth]

Some wag said, "Two more facelifts and Nancy will be wearing a goatee."

[Red_Devil 232]

...A "100-hour agenda" should take 100 hours to enact, not "several weeks". Come on! We are talking about the U.S. House ... 100 hours of work there could take up to several months!

[pawdoggie]

Now where have I seen that before...? Oh yeah! "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Hey, if by "that woman" he was referring to "MS Pelosi", I'd believe him.

[Logical me]

But every labor union contract has a clause that automatically gives the contract members an equivalent hourly raise. A federal raise in the minimum wage is a gift to the unions.

Don't see a problem here. All it means is that as the union get it's raise, so the product price goes up. Wage goes up, price goes up. A wash for me. Those that will suffer most in those on fixed income.