Democrats To Pass Energy Legislation

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has struck a deal with Michigan Democrats in a new energy bill that will increase fuel economy standards by 40% by 2020;

Automakers would be required to meet an industrywide average of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, by 2020, the first increase by Congress in car fuel efficiency in 32 years.

Republicans protested the bill because it did not include funding for domestic oil drilling and production. Pelosi stated she hoped the bill would push for alternative forms of energy and renweable energy.

The bill is expected to pass the House and Senate and go to the President desk, and what he does is still in question.

Democrats Do Something

And gloat about it.

Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations; a homeland security cornacopia that shifts money to high risks cities and states, expands screening of cargo at air and sea terminals, and puts money into a new program to ensure that security officials at every level can communicate with each other.

After six months in office and a minimum wage incrase, the Democrats can finally celebrate that they've done...something.

“We will have done in six months what previous Congresses failed to do for almost six years,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Still, Republicans complain this, the second success of the Democratic Congress shows the 110th Congress is just as useless as the 109th.

See, now here's the test;

Important Bills Passed By The 110th Congress;
-Raise in the minimum wage
-Implement the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commissions

Important Bills Passed By The 109th Congress;
-?

Yeah, exactly.

For a Congress with a President from the other side of the political spectrum, not bad...if only they'd get our troops out of Iraq.

Alright, Really, C'Mon

I'd love to see Bush impeached as much as the next liberal Democrat, but until he's officially committed a crime, there's nothing to impeach him.

Also, challenging a sitting Speaker of the House in a primary because she didn't do something she technically can't even do is counterproductive.

I've had about enough of Cindy Sheehan...I sympathize with, but enough now.

The Republicans In Syria

The White House has spend the better part of the week blasting Speaker Nancy Pelosi for going to Syria and meeting President Assad. Whether or not Pelosi was right for going, the White House HAS been strangely quiet on three other members of Congress who were in Syria this week...all Republicans.

Congressmen Frank Wolf (R-Virginia), Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pennsylvania) were in Syria a few days before Pelosi. All three have been critical of the President's response to Pelosi's trip;

"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country, I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah." -Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virginia

"This is an area where we would disagree with the administration, None of us in the Congress work for the president. We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents. ... I think there's room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line." -Rep Rob Aderholt (R-Alabama)

The White House, which likes to blast Pelosi by name, went easy on their fellow Republicans;

"We discourage all visits to Syria because it's a state sponsor of terror. A lot of officials have gone, and it hasn't changed the Syrians' behavior." -WH Spokesman Alex Conant

Yeah, neither had isolating them.

Pelosi’s Foreign Policy

In a slap in the face of President Bush's "I'm too good to talk to you" foreign policy stance, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is heading to Syria next week to visit with President Basher al-Assad. The White House doesn't want her to go, and is "discouraging the visit," but Pelosi will go anyway.

While I'm not a big fan of Syria, specifically because of their support for Hamas, Hezbollah and how they like to screw with the Lebanese government, diplomacy does not hurt. President Bush's "no diplomacy foreign policy" has not gotten us anywhere except on the rest of the world's shit list, so what can it hurt if Pelosi tries this?

It is, by the way, encouraged by the Iraq Study Group that we do talk to some of the powers in the region, including Syria and Iran, to put together a solution in Iraq, and if we've learned anything from Iraq, it's that bombing everyone who disagrees with us back to the stone age doesn't bring about change, despite the fact that it may seem like the easy solution. Blowing things up doesn't necessarily make people respect us; it just makes then want to blow our stuff up too.

I have to admit though, I'm kind of surprised at the way Nancy Pelosi has been acting as Speaker of the House. I rather suspected she would be a rollover type, who would eventually cave in to the President if he applied enough press to her. Actually, she's been one tough woman. It makes me wonder how at the end she will rank among the Speakers.

Oh, and by the way, just to prove the Democrats aren't the party of the terrorists, Pelosi is ALSO heading over to Israel to address the Knesset. Diplomacy is a good thing.

The Road to 218

If the Democrats manage to pull off a victory with the supplemental bill, it would be a HUGE victory, not only for them, but for voters in general who voted for change last November, even though it allocates more money for a war they want to end.

It is no secret that a majority of Americans want the war in Iraq to end one way or another, and it's no secret that is also true of Congress. However, Congress, like the American people are divided on how to do it. Some say cut the funds, some say cut only some and some say find a way to force the President to bring the troops home without cutting their funds.

I, for one, feel that nothing will coerce this President to bring the troops home and there is nothing Congress can do to force the President to end the war, so therefore Congress needs to take a stand and show the people they are, at the very least, trying to stop the war. They can cut the funds, but will that guarantee the President will bring the troops home? Or will it guarantee that he will leave them there unprotected and unprepared? That is a risk I'm not sure I'd like to take. I don't trust this administration enough to feel comfortable with that. I don't trust them enough to think he won't leave our brothers and sisters in the middle of a civil war without any armor or ammunition, and until I'm convinced otherwise, I will continue to feel that way.

It seems the problems for the Democrats are from the left. Sure, there are a few on the right, namely Jim Marshall of Georgia or Gene Taylor of Mississippi who are probably going to oppose any attempt to end the war, but it seems that the main problem comes from the left. Those anti-war Democrats did not vote for funding the war during the Republican-controlled Congress and do not want to set a date for withdrawal that is a year away and that the President can easily ignore. These Democrats are who Speaker Pelosi are trying to bring to her side this week. So far, she's gotten some. The following Democrats, who initially opposed the bill, are jumping on-board…albeit reluctantly;

Barbara Lee (D-California)

Lynn Woolsey (D-California)

Maxine Waters (D-California)

Diane Watson (D-California)

Zoe Lofgren (D-California)

Lois Capps (D-California)

Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts)

John Olver (D-Massachusetts)

Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)

Albert Wynn (D-Maryland)

Edolphus Towns (D-New York)

Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)

Jim McDermott (D-Washington)

Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)

Pelosi also scored a victory in convincing some of the new freshman to vote for the bill. Among them are Carol Shea-Porter (D-New Hampshire). Shea-Porter won a shocking victory due mainly to her staunch anti-war stance. She is voting for the bill despite, what she admits, is strong opposition from her constituents.

Nevertheless, the people don't realize exactly how little power Congress had to end this war. They don't realize how dangerous cutting the funding would be for the troops because it wouldn't exactly force Bush to bring them home. They don't 100% realize what the full powers of Congress are. Cutting the funds may be a last resort, but I'm not comfortable with taking my chances on that just yet. The President is going to have to feel the pressure eventually, and if he doesn't…we bite the bullet and cut funding and deal with the consequences should they come about. If anyone can give me a good explanation as to how cutting the funding will bring the troops home, I'll recant my statement and support it 100%.

But first, Pelosi needs to get to 218.

Don't Punish New Orleans

Amidst all the brouhaha about the appointment of the corrupt piece of garbage Congressman William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) to the Homeland Security committee, there is something everyone is forgetting...his constituents.

Yes, Jefferson has been dogged by scandal, he is corrupt, he is the worst possible type of politicians, but something has happened since Pelosi stripped him off the Ways and Means Committee...an election happened.

And it wasn't as if Jefferson wasn't targeted. Another Democrat, Karen Carter, ran against Jefferson and got support from a large number of Democrats around the country. (I rooted for Cater to defeat Jefferson.) However, the people of New Orleans, for some ungodly reason, reelected the jerk.

Pelosi put him on the Homeland Security committee to serve the people of New Orleans, 43% of whom did not vote for Jefferson. The people of New Orleans deserve service...and quite frankly, I look forward to defeating Jefferson in 2008.

I would say however, one more indication of corruption from this guy, and he should be stripped of everything and possibly even expelled from the House. I can't deal with people like Jefferson. It angers me that he got reelected, but that was the prerogative, which I can't seem to understand, of a slim majority of his district.

Pelosi's Plane Problems

No, that's not Air Force One...that's the plane used by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi...or at least that's the plane that was chosen for her.

Since 9/11, the Pentagon has agreed to provide the Speaker of the House, second in line to the Presidency with the private military plane to take him or her to and from his or her's home district and back to Washington.

Since 9/11, there have only been two Speakers...first Denny Hastert from Illinois, who didn't have to travel all that far, and now Nancy Pelosi from far away San Francisco, California.

For security reasons, the Pentagon and the Speaker agree he or she should fly to and from Washington non-stop, but San Francisco to Washington is close to 4,000 miles. Hastert's small Gulfstream-like plane brought him back to Northern Illinois without a problem, but California to Washington...a little more of a problem

It doesn't surprise me that the GOP is pouncing on reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has requested a more elaborate and expensive plane to transport her back and forth from California to Washington...but perhaps before they pounce, they should look more into things.

First of all, to listen to GOP Congressmen, such as Patrick McHenry (R-North Carolina) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) complain Pelosi's plane contributes to global warming really ticked me off

"The jet that Pelosi has produces 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour, far more than the previous speaker used" said Congressman McHenry

Oh so worried are we now about global warming after IGNORING IT for so long

Anyway, House Sargent-at-arms Bill Livingood now admits he, not the Speaker, requested the bigger, fancier plane. Pelosi admitted she wouldn't care if she just flew commercially (as Speakers pre 9-11 did).

Even the White House said the issue was overblown by House Republicans.

I guess the GOP is just sore about being in the minority...they don't like it. They don't like to be without power...they got too used to it.

Well...my only response is the same one they gave to Democrats after 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004;

YOU LOST, GET OVER IT