Pelosi To Waste No Time

Expect a hard working 110th Congress:Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi will open the House for the first session of the 110th Congress on January 4, and keep it in session for the first several weeks of January.

While that may not sound remarkable outside-the-beltway, it is departure from tradition that is certain to prompt some teeth gnashing among Republicans.

Congress typically convenes the first week of January after a holiday recess just long enough for new members to be sworn in, and then promptly adjourns until the president's State of the Union Address toward the end of the month.

Pelosi's team apparently figures there's no reason to allow President Bush to set the agenda in January by leaking bits of his speech. Instead the Democratic Congress will immediately plunge into its lengthy to-do list, starting with an ethics reform package, and perhaps have some bills on Bush's desk by the time the State of the Union is ready for delivery.

"From economic security to national security, the American people have resoundingly called for a new direction,'' Pelosi said in a just-released statement. "It is imperative that we waste no time in addressing the pressing needs facing our nation.'' Considering the various traditions and rules of civil conduct that Republicans have broken over the past decade, not to mention the record amounts of time the Republican majority Congress spent out of session, this should be a nice change of pace.

Tags: Democrats, House 2008, Nancy Pelosi (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

Okay- I can officially say I like her, I like her a lot. She's a breathe of fresh air.

by bruh21 2006-11-21 03:39PM | 0 recs
HOW DARE THEY...

...actually do their jobs!  What is with the Defeatocrats and their obsession with putting in hard hours of work??  Just another perversion of democracy!

These people should be ashamed!  We all should be ashamed!  America should be ashamed!

by HellofaSandwich 2006-11-21 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

Sic em Nancy. Make Bush veto every progressive bill we can. That will show the rest of the country where the Republicans really stand.

by druidbros 2006-11-21 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

Awesome tone-setting move.  Let's commandeer the headlines and establish an agenda long before Bush gets a chance to mouth his yearly platitudes.

by Steve M 2006-11-21 04:17PM | 0 recs
Hmmm... me likey likey

I should say that I am not a super-big Pelosi guy.  Bit I like this move.  Smart.  Set the tone, be aggressive, so it in a way that people can relate to and appreciate.

This is a big fuck-you to Bush wrapped up in a nice neat little we'll-hussle-our-asses-off bow.  I think the American people will appreciate both aspects of this.

by teknofyl 2006-11-21 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time
This could be a particularly good PR move if it is paired with the under-the-radar fact that republicans are preparing to leave all their remaining work (read: budgets, medicare funding...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061121/ap_o n_go_co/cluttered_congress) unfinished.
Just keep repeating "We have to work extra hard to clean up all their messes."
by jujube 2006-11-21 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

Not just a PR move.  It's actually true.  Republicans are leaving a huge amount of work undone.  This last Congress was in session something like the fewest number of days and passed the fewest number of bills since the Do-Nothing Congress under Truman, and they're wrapping it up by punting all their budgets.  Pelosi needs an extra month of session just to start catching up on all the stuff the last Congress didn't take care of.

by antidoto 2006-11-21 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

It was fewer, actually.  Imagine.

by bruorton 2006-11-22 04:05AM | 0 recs
Civil Conduct w/ Thugs? WHY?

Of course, ya gotta keep blathering on about "bipartisanship" and "wrecking across the isle"

I mean "reaching across the aisle", but

do ALL of our too few soundbites have to be anchored to truth?

From Gingrich to Rove, (or ... since the 1820's?) the M.O. has been

corner 'em, cower 'em, crush them.

They ain't gonna change.

Time to read and implement "The Prince" on these bastards.

It is better to be feared than to be loved.

rmm.  

by seabos84 2006-11-21 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

I think she may need a supply of glue to glue them to their seats. When they are in sesssion they show up on Tuesday and leave Thursday. They spend a lot of their time fund raising because they run every two years and even house elections are expensive unless you have a safe seat. With the 50 State Strategy there may not be as many safe seats.

by JSN 2006-11-21 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

Great strategy.  The president is a lameduck in his sixth year in office and the Congress is a CO-EQUAL branch of government.  Bush deserves NO fucking deference just because he's going to flap his jaws on his annual speech.

I always wondered why the legislative branch shows so much deference to the executive.  To put off a legislative agenda until after the president's substanceless SOTU speech, inherently gives the executive more authority at the expense of the legislature.

I know the SOTU is constitutionally mandated, but it is only within the last eighty years or so that the president started delivering his message in speech formate.  The big hoopla these days regarding the SOTU is an example of the rise of the imperial executive and the neutered legislative branch.

by jgarcia 2006-11-21 06:04PM | 0 recs
It Doesn't Have To Be Substantless

While I largely agree with everything you said, I just want to point out that the SOTU doesn't have to be empty rhetoric.  In 1998, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was broken the week before the SOTU, Versailles went ballistic, with folks talking about Clinton resigning, and all sorts of silly stuff.

Then Clinton went out and gave a speech just packed with policy proposals, which had the pundits rolling their eyes, and his job approval jumped up into the 60s.

For example, Time/CNN:

      Approve     Disap-  Not
                         prove      Sure
1/14-15/98:     59     33     8
1/22/98:        52     41     7
1/28-29/98       68       27       5       

Turned out, the people liked Clinton's policies.  And that's what they really cared about, too.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-11-21 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: It Doesn't Have To Be Substantless






















Date Approve DisApprove Not Sure
1/14-15/98: 59 33 8
1/22/98: 52 41 7
1/28-29/98: 68 27 5

Paul - first, are all the polls conducted with the same methodology and second, are these an average of several polls?  here's hoping I can help to strengthen this post a bit.

by heyAnita 2006-11-22 12:16AM | 0 recs
Re: It Doesn't Have To Be Substantless

There is some really generic table code in the post above, just a simple [ table ] thing
that I re-created pauls statistics in, and it made the post wierd in IE 6 and now the whole website doesnt look right to me...

system administrators.. r u there?

by heyAnita 2006-11-22 12:20AM | 0 recs
Tables Always Do That In Scoop, SoapBlox

I don't know why.  I was in too much of a hurry to clean it up, sorry.  But the way to do it right is with tt tags.  (See no-longer-so-frequent polling posts on DKos front page, as well as here.)

As for the question you asked, these are from a single set of polls by the same pollster (Yankelovitch) for the same media partnership (Time/CNN).  Several other polls confirmed the general trend, but, like I said, I was in hurry, so I didn't check thoroughly.  This was just the first I found that had one poll in early January, one poll the week before the SOTU, and one poll just after it.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-11-22 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time
Vacations over!!!!
You right in that this will drive the repub nuts.  
But, the sad part is that everything she has done to prepare and everything she does today and tomorrow will be dissected and found fault with by the MSM>
Even today, instead of talking about this, they are talking about how much she has damaged herself and will she be able to lead??
It is sick.  I feel like screaming at them.
by vwcat 2006-11-21 06:07PM | 0 recs
Well, That's One Way To Tell The Pundits To STFU

already with all their entrail reading.  Here's some real legislation.  Now, what are you going to say about that?

Oh, right.  I forgot.  They don't do substance.

Nevermind...

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-11-21 06:32PM | 0 recs
Republicans left work from this session...

Tough for the Republicans. They left so much budgetary work over for the next term that was supposed to be done this year.

"Republicans vacating the Capitol are leaving a big spring-cleaning job for Democrats moving in. GOP leaders have opted to leave behind almost a half-trillion-dollar clutter of unfinished spending bills.

"The bulging workload that a Republican-led Congress was supposed to complete this year promises to consume time and energy that Democrats had hoped to devote to their own agenda upon taking control of Congress in January for the first time in a dozen years.

"The decision to drop so much unfinished work in Democrats' laps demonstrates both division within Republican ranks and the difficulty in resolving so many knotty questions in so short a time. GOP leaders promised their House and Senate members the December lame-duck session would last no more than two weeks, or until Dec. 16 at the latest."

Excerpted from the AP article at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na tionworld/2003440825_congress21.html

by lemonyellow 2006-11-21 06:35PM | 0 recs
What? And show up to work?!

That's a great way to hit them in the face.  Make them show up for work. Personally, I'd say work them every possible day.  No more damn vacations at all, because we have to repair everything they've screwed up.  Hell, Pelosi should arrange 5AM wakeup calls for these bastards.

And if you really want to stick a finger in their eye, schedule all the important votes for when they usually take their vacations. If they don't show up? Well, you don't get to vote...

by CranesAreFlying 2006-11-21 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

Knock them down and then kick them in the head. And passing some legislation that Americans are behind so BushIdiot can veto it!

I'm down wit dis.

'Drive the Republicans into the Sea!'

by Pericles 2006-11-21 07:43PM | 0 recs
RIGHT ON!

Those were my first words after reading this and they fit!

by kevin22262 2006-11-21 07:45PM | 0 recs
100 Hours is just setting the tone

The real footwork is going to take more than one term.  And, frankly, a lot of issues are going to be ignored for the good of the nation.

I suspect, to people's surprise, this Congress is going to actually get thing done with Bush.

A number of factors come into play.

1. Bush will likely accept a sort of detente where he can continue wrecking Iraq and Afghanistan in exchange for letting the Dems move the domestic agenda.  The Dems will let him do it because there is no better way short of impeaching Bush.

2. Bush isn't a very hardcore conservative outside the realm of war.

3. Bush is disinclined toward drawn out domestic battles anyhow.

4. Bush and the Dems agree more often than we like to admit.  Look at the immigration bill, which stands a much better chance now with the Dems in power.

5. Most of Bush's policies are dead in the water anyhow.  No more tax cuts.  No Social Security gutting.

by jcjcjc 2006-11-21 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: 100 Hours is just setting the tone

"bush isn't a very hardcore conservative outside the realm of war" ... that is well said, actually.

There is a PBS Frontline special you should look up. Its called "The Dark Side"

Bush was a pretty darn good governor of Texas, a leader from consensus.

Do you think he will emerge as a stronger leader from all of this, if he does it again?

by heyAnita 2006-11-22 12:08AM | 0 recs
Re: 100 Hours is just setting the tone

Bush's Governorship in Texas has always been hugely overrated.  It's true he was forced to work with a Democratic legislature.  It's also true he had almost no power, and that his purported major achievement (improving Texas schools) does not bear up under scrutiny.

Also, there's a huge difference between Texas Democrats and the national party.  

"Do you think he will emerge as a stronger leader from all of this, if he does it again?"

No.

I've been betting the "No Pass" line with Bush since 2000 and I've yet to go wrong with that.  Bush fails at everything he does.

by RickD 2006-11-22 04:21AM | 0 recs
Bush is committing to one failure now

I would be surprised if he makes much effort to combat the Dems as long as they turn a blind eye to Iraq.

The downer would be if the Dems decide to aggressively pursue impeachment.  Then, the chuckleheads like Rove get their chance to fight one more bareknuckle round.  And all bets would be off at that point.

by jcjcjc 2006-11-22 07:45AM | 0 recs
Side not

I support impeaching Bush on charges of treason (I think a fair argument can be made be betrayed America to corporate and foreign interests).

I just don't think the Democratic leadership has it in them to remove a President by firing squad.

by jcjcjc 2006-11-22 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

I am reminded of the classroom teacher, after a brief absence, returns to the classroom that was run by a substitute teacher. The substitute, not entirely lacking, but had never quite got the hang of running a classroom, had left things in shambles knowing that the regular teacher would put it all back together.  Well, it seems we are at that point now.  There is no attempt by the Republicans to clean up their mess, and after all is said and done they really didn't like their job or the institution they served and were looking for a better job elsewhere.  This sustitute thing was only temporary.  God I hope so!!!!!

by stephennnn 2006-11-21 11:59PM | 0 recs
Ethics Reform Number One

"We live in a time where Corporations have taken unprecedented control over the institutions of government" - Howard Dean, 2004

We should be careful of the mythos that the lobbyists have carefully built up in DC

The first myth is that you need them, or their corporations or special interest groups - to get re-elected.

With the internet truly powering the election campaigns of a strong majority of the incoming freshmen - the lobbyists and their massive, multimillion dollar promises of buying elections with television connections sounds empty. But when youtube removed a presidential contender from power, and a former secretary of Navy was elected to the senate, instead of a demagogue - the blue light faded.

2006 marks a turning point in history. We are not only still here but in greater force than ever before and we are not watching. This is not a reality TV show to us.

This is thomas.gov

by heyAnita 2006-11-22 12:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

Can I ask a stupid question?  I know the congress critters have to spend alot of time in their home states campaigning, but.....if we have to work at least 5 days a week, why shouldn't they?  Why couldn't Pelosi push for a 5-day work week, publicize the hell out of it, explaining to the public that the repub congress only worked 2-3 days a week ON THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS.  If congress people don't have as much time in their home bases, maybe so much $$ won't be spent...putting a dent into these out-of-control campaigns, and getting more work done in congress?  Can someone please explain this to a politically niave person?  thanks

by anninla 2006-11-22 04:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

District time is important -- it's not campaigning, especially in odd-numbered years -- but holding town meetings, drafting legislation, etc.

by Adam B 2006-11-22 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Pelosi To Waste No Time

There's also a large component of "constituent services." This includes getting people flags and setting up school trips to DC, and dealing with complaints about social security or how a town is misusing it's federal transportation money or how your uncle is stuck in a Turkish prison. Your congressperson is one of the most important contacts and advocates you have in federal government. This does not always work, but sometimes it does. This work is typically handled by staffers, but like in any busy office, it is important for the boss to stop by now and again to make sure things are working and to handle the big stuff. This is not necessarily to defend congress, but to say that just b/c they are not in DC doesn't mean they are not working.
If a congressman is from CA, they still almost all return to the district every single week, which can mean two full days of travel every week.

That all said, if campaigns were publically funded each congressperson would have much much more time to devote to legislation and constituent services (read: the work they are elected to do) regardless of where they are (b/c much of their incessant soliciting is done by phone from DC).

by jujube 2006-11-22 02:00PM | 0 recs
Regarding ethics reform, I hope they require all

...travel by Congress members to be paid for by the public or the Congress member personally.

No charity/educational groups paying for travel.

Simply banning travel paid for by lobbyists would leave a huge loophole, in which corporations can continue to bribe Congress members by paying for trips which supposedly come from a charity/educational group.

by Eric Jaffa 2006-11-22 05:12AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads