posted January 08, 2007 12:35 PM            

And what ever happened to democrat promises to schedule Congress for a 5 day a week workweek?

It sure looks like they're scheduling themselves plenty of time off from work.

As usual, democrat promises look like so much election blather.

If Pelosi schedules it just right, those 100 hours will be the "all day sucker" which lasts all the way through this Congress.

Suckers is the right word here...day and night, forever and always.

Monday, Jan. 8, 2007 11:31 a.m. EST
Pelosi Democrats Take a Holiday

Nancy Pelosi and the new Democratic majority in Congress and their dust-up over a "100 Hours” of reform may be just that – a lot of dust.

We hear from the Hill that among Pelosi’s first acts was to give the House off from work Monday, January 8, which should have been its first "back to business” day.

But that’s not all. House Speaker Pelosi’s office has plenty of more "off days” marked, including February 19-23, April 2-13, May 28-June 1, July 2-6 and August 6-31.

No doubt,implementation of the Democrats’ "100 hours” agenda could take months – not hours.

Democrats vowed to immediately launch a 100-hour push to pass a wide range of legislation, including raising the minimum wage, implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations, cutting subsidies to the oil industry, promoting embryonic stem cell research and making college educations and prescription drugs more affordable.

posted January 09, 2007 12:54 PM            

Now they want to defund the troops and pull support from adding more Soldiers to the war in order to get things stablized for the total handover (well not total). They promised to add more troops and not to mess with the funding.. but "my bad" I should have known that anytime a Democrat makes a promise and Angel loses their wings!!!

posted January 09, 2007 03:22 PM            

The democrat leadership in Congress cannot be depended on for anything they say. They are the very same party of tax, tax, tax..even when they have promised not to propose new taxes. They are feckless, irresponsible liars.

On the war, this is what Nancy Pelosi had to say about more troops for Iraq on Meet the Press before the 2004 election...when she was trying to get the traitor John Kerry elected.

Surprise, Pelosi was FOR sending more US forces to Iraq if necessary to stabilize the country.

Now, it's different and Pelosi is AGAINST sending more forces to Iraq.

Hint, Pelosi was never FOR any US forces in Iraq or anywhere else.

democrats lie and hope no one remembers what they said yesterday, last week, last month or last year. They have a very convenient definition of truth and history is whatever they say it was. When they get caught lying, they shrug it off and say..."that's old news".

Now, not only is Iraq stable...given Pelosi's previous reasoning that more troops are needed to stabilize Iraq and her NOW insistence no more troops are needed...but in addition to that, the threat from terrorism has also disappeared.

MR. RUSSERT: What would you do in Iraq today right now?

REP. PELOSI: What I would do and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are. And there has to be a leveling with the American people and with the Congress of the United States as to what is really actually happening there. It's very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground. General...

MR. RUSSERT: American troops if necessary?

REP. PELOSI: ...Shinseki said this from the start, when you make an appraisal about whether you're going to war, you have to know what you need.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would put more American troops on the ground?

REP. PELOSI: What I'm saying to you, that we need more troops on the ground. I think it would be better if we could get them to be not American, that we could appeal to our European allies, NATO. I agree with Senator Kerry in that respect to come...

MR. RUSSERT: But if they say no, would you put more American troops on the ground?

REP. PELOSI: Clear and present danger facing the United States is terrorism. We have to solidify, we have to stabilize the situation in Iraq. As secretary of state has said, "You break it, you own it." We have a responsibility now in Iraq there. And we have to get more troops on the ground. But when General Shinseki said we need 300,000 troops, Secretary Wolfowitz said "wildly off the mark," because they knew a commitment of 300,000 troops would not be acceptable to the American people. So they went in with false assumptions about rose petals, not rocket-propelled grenades, and we're in this fix that we're in now.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, let's assume all that is wrong. In order to stabilize the situation, NATO has said they have no troops for Iraq, the French, the Germans and Russians saying no.

REP. PELOSI: We have to send...

MR. RUSSERT: Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?

REP. PELOSI: Yes. And let me just say this, we have--we must, though, internationalize the situation. We cannot take no for an answer. We have to use our diplomacy to the fullest extent to get more international troops on the ground. And we have to truly Iraqitize, internationalize and Iraqitize the situation. Before we can proceed, we have to know what we're dealing with. There's quicksand over there. It's Chalabi one day on the payroll, the next day we're raiding his house. It's Brahimi one day.........
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5086094/

posted January 10, 2007 03:03 PM            

House Democrats lost considerable credibility yesterday when their opening session was cancelled so that members could attend the Ohio State-Florida State football game. This is not a joke.

It is, however, a blunt metaphor for how genuinely out of touch the members of Congress really are. How many other Americans do you suppose were given the same perk? A day off because of an evening football game? And how many school kids would like to have time off to watch their own favorite teams? What kind of message is the House leadership sending?

Is it that they don’t get how bad it looks, or that they don’t care?

Their record has been dismal. Last year, the House and Senate worked an average of about two days a week for their salary of $162,500. Nice work if you can find it. Responding to well-deserved criticisms, the new House majority leader, Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), with great fanfare, promised a five-day work week. But that was just talk. When it was the Republicans who were scheduling the eight-day month, Hoyer was outraged. But now that the Democrats control the calendar, he considers a football game to be a legitimate excuse for a vacation day. As he said in reference to the new House minority leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), “There is a very important event happening Monday night, particularly for those who live in Ohio and Florida. In the spirit of comity, and I know if Maryland were playing, I would want to be accommodated, and I want to accommodate my friend, Mr. Boehner.”

Apparently Mr. Hoyer is not familiar with the disdain that American voters feel for members of Congress. A mid-December Gallup poll showed that 74 percent of Americans disapproved of the job that Congress was doing. Hoyer is certainly doing his best to keep those negative poll numbers.

And there won’t be a five-day work week at all in January. The Martin Luther King holiday falls next week and the Democrats and Republicans are holding respective retreats during the following two weeks. The Democrats are planning a day of speeches in two weeks, including one by Bill Clinton. Hey folks, ever think about doing this on a weekend?

So the promised “five-day” work week starts on Tuesday at 6:30 and ends at about 2 on Friday — more like a two-and-a-half-day work week.

And that might not even happen if there’s another important football game.

Meanwhile in the Senate, while Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) fight for an independent watchdog to enforce lobbying laws, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) insists that hearings must first be held on the issue. This is hardly a new idea. It’s been proposed for years and makes sense. We’ve seen how little policing of lobbyists has been done — witness Jack Abramoff and his cohorts. Requiring hearings is just another stalling tactic. And, in any event, Reid is the last person who should be in charge of designing the self-policing of lobbyists. For years, his three sons and son-in-law made millions by lobbying for Nevada interests — often working out of his Senate office. Only when the press called attention to the practice did Reid bar the boys. Talk about the goats guarding the garbage! Sen. Obama spoke of “institutional resistance” to the watchdog provisions. That institutional resistance has led to serious lobbying transgressions that must be stopped.