Pelosi Hints at Democrats' 'Unified' Agenda

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Stephanie, Mar 15, 2006.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    :tinfoil: :blah2:
    By Susan Jones
    CNSNews.com Senior Editor
    March 15, 2006

    (CNSNews.com) - The Republican Party has wondered what's taking Democrats so long to unveil their election-year agenda. Amid press reports that it will happen any day now, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday offered what amounts to a draft version.

    Americans who find it hard to make ends meet may like the promises they hear from the Democrats. But the companies that employ such Americans may not like the plan.

    In any case, the Republican Party says the Democrats' real agenda involves the censure and possible impeachment of President George W. Bush.

    In a speech to the Communications Workers of America on Tuesday, Pelosi mentioned Democrats' opposition to outsourcing. She said Democrats will end tax subsidies for companies that send jobs overseas.

    She also said Democrats support the "right of all Americans to organize," a sentiment that goes over well with labor unions such as the CWA.

    To protect workers who want to join unions, Pelosi said Democrats are "fighting" to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, sponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) in the House and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in the Senate. "The bill will guarantee that when a majority of workers in a company want a union, they will get a union," Pelosi said.

    Democrats also support an increase in the minimum wage. Pelosi, describing the income of corporate American CEOs as "immoral," used Wal-Mart to make her point:

    "I was told that an entry level person at Wal-Mart, who works his or her entire career at Wal-Mart, would make as much as the CEO makes in two weeks. A lifetime of work versus two weeks in the executive suite -- this is not America, this is not fairness, this is not the basis of a strong middle class that is essential for our democracy. We must change that in our country," she said.

    Pelosi also mentioned the Democrats' "Innovation Agenda" to maintain America's leadership role in the global economy.

    America lags behind other countries that have universal broadband deployment, Pelosi said; but the Democrats' agenda "guarantees" that every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years.

    "We also believe that the nationwide deployment of high speed, always-on broadband and Internet and mobile communications will fuel the development of millions of new jobs in the United States," Pelosi said.

    Democrats support "energy independence" within ten years; health care for all American within five years; and "dignified retirement" (no privatization of Social Security) through an "AmeriSave" plan.

    Have to win first

    "In order to make any of these victories, we must have one important victory first -- we have to win in November," Pelosi told the CWA.

    "And win we will, because the American people want change," she added. (Pelosi then mentioned the Republican "culture of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence" in Washington.)

    Pelosi attacked Republicans for writing a prescription drug bill that has seniors "paying higher prices on drugs at the pharmacy"; she mentioned an energy bill "that gives obscene subsidies to oil companies" that raise prices for consumers; and she mentioned "tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America" who "certainly don't need them." Pelosi also mentioned the high cost of college tuition and the cost of the Iraq war.

    "America's working families simply cannot afford George Bush and this Rubber Stamp Congress," Pelosi said.

    "Democrats stand for "real security," Pelosi said, including port security. "We must have 100 percent screening of our containers that come into our ports," she said.

    She also said real security means giving troops the equipment they need to keep them safe in a war zone.

    Impeachment agenda

    Democrats have the issues and the strategy, Pelosi told the CWA -- and "we're going to have this unified message that we put out there, making a stance on the issues because there are so many of them." She did not say exactly when that will happen.

    According to Pelosi, Democrats are "about the future" and making it "better for the next generation."

    But the Republican Party says Democrats are about censure and impeachment.

    As Democrats keep promising to introduce their 2006 policy agenda and the date keeps slipping, look what's been happening, the Republican National Committee said on its website:

    On Monday, Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, introduced a resolution to censure a sitting president in a time of war - "over a program that is successfully stopping terrorists," the RNC said.

    And Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has introduced a resolution that would create a select committee "to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment" of President Bush.

    The Conyers resolution, introduced in December, now has 29 Democratic co-sponsors, the RNC said.
    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200603\POL20060315b.html
     
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    no surprise and no real agenda (other than Bush bashing --again)
    How many flags can you run up that flag pole until someone finally salutes it? :huh:
     
  3. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    The Impeachment Agenda
    Wall Street Journal Editorial
    March 15, 2006

    Republicans are denouncing Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to "censure" President Bush for his warrantless wiretaps on al Qaeda, but we'd like to congratulate the Wisconsin Democrat on his candor. He's had the courage to put on the table what Democrats are all but certain to do if they win either the House or Senate in November.

    In fact, our guess is that censure would be the least of it. The real debate in Democratic circles would be whether to pass articles of impeachment. Whether such an inevitable attempt succeeds would depend on Mr. Bush's approval rating, and especially on whether Democrats could use their subpoena power as committee chairs to conjure up something they could flog to a receptive media as an "impeachable" offense. But everyone should understand that censure and impeachment are important--and so far the only--parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress.

    And not just the loony left either, though it's getting harder to distinguish them from the mainstream variety. Mr. Feingold is hardly some Internet crank. He's a third-term Senator from a swing state who has all but announced his intention to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. He was the first major Democrat to call for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, and half his party was soon demanding the same.

    As a legal matter, Mr. Feingold's censure proposal is preposterous. The National Security Agency wiretaps were disclosed to Congressional leaders, including Democrats, from the start. The lead FISA court judges were also informed, and the Attorney General and Justice lawyers have monitored the wiretaps all along. Despite a media drumbeat about "illegal domestic eavesdropping," Mr. Bush's spirited defense of the program since news of it leaked has swung public opinion in support.

    But as a political matter, the Wisconsin Senator knows exactly what he's doing. He knows that anti-Bush pathology runs so deep among many Democrats that they really do think they're living in some new dictatorship. Liberal journals solemnly debate impeachment, and political-action groups have formed to promote it. One of our leading left-wing newspapers recently compared Mr. Bush to J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as if there were even a speck of evidence that this White House is wiretapping its political enemies.

    When the fever gets this hot in supposedly mainstream forums, Mr. Feingold is right to conclude that the facts behind any censure or impeachment motion won't really matter. All that will count is the politics, which means it will come down to a question of votes in Congress. And several leading Democrats have already raised the "impeachment" card.

    California Senator Barbara Boxer loudly wrote four legal scholars late last year asking if the NSA wiretaps were impeachable. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has introduced a resolution calling for the creation of a "select committee to investigate the administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

    In other words, everything that Mr. Bush has been accused of during the last five years, no matter how Orwellian or thoroughly refuted, will be trotted out again and used as impeachment fodder. And lest you think this could never happen, Judiciary is the House committee through which any formal impeachment resolution would be introduced and proceed. As the country heads toward 2008 and a Democratic nomination fight, John Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton would be hard-pressed to avoid going along with Mr. Feingold, Al Gore, and others feeding the bile of the censure/impeach brigades.

    Which brings us back to Mr. Feingold's public service in floating his "censure" gambit now. He's doing voters a favor by telling them before November's election just how Democrats intend to treat a wartime President if they take power.

    Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America's enemies. And they want to do so not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he's abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he's been too energetic in using his powers to defend America. By all means, let's have this impeachment debate before the election, so voters can know what's really at stake.

    www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008091
     
  4. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    Typical Dem claptrap. Pelosi's plan will make US companies less competitive by forcing higher wages and Unions down their throats. Some companies will even bolt rather than face having a Union workplace.

    As for the censure/impeachment threat, bring it on. In the end, you will just make yourselves look even more like the losers you are.
     
  5. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    What exactly will a censure do? Will it embarass the President? How 'bout tarnish his historical reputation. No, I know. It will force him to resign.

    Anyone that can add without a calculator can see right through all the censure talk. The Democrats are gaining momentum and capitilizing on the President's low numbers. They are gonna ride this censure debate through the mid-terms and if , for some ungodly reason, they win. Then The President will be impeached before the GOP gets their offices cleaned out. Let's face it. A censure is nothing. They want impeachment.
     

Share This Page