Friday, November 10, 2006

Nancy Pelosi and homeland security

Behind all the smiles and the illusion of bi-partisanship between Speaker Pelosi and President Bush, others are telling a different story: The following are excerpts from Insighmag.com.

"Rep. Nancy Pelosi plans to sideline colleagues who are hawkish on national security in the Democratic leadership in the House."

"Democratic Party sources said as House Speaker, Ms. Pelosi plans to block moves that would place hawks into important chairmanships. The sources said a key casualty would be Rep. Jane Harman, a six-term member of Congress who has cooperated with Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee."

"Nancy Pelosi wants total party discipline," a source in the Democratic Party leadership said. "If you played ball with the Republicans during this session, then you're not going to be given an important chair in the next session."

"There is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee,' Ms. Pelosi said. 'The leader or the speaker can appoint a whole new set of people."

"The sources said the 61-year-old Ms. Harman, regarded as the best informed House Democrat on intelligence and technology issues, angered the liberal Ms. Pelosi by supporting the Bush administration’s policies on defense issues, particularly the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. They said Ms. Pelosi has rebuffed lobbyists in the pro-Israel community and defense industry that sought a chairmanship for Ms. Harman."


For the entire article see Insightmag.com

5 comments:

Kevin said...

I was wondering how the Democrats would excercise their majority. It will be interesting to see exactly what these decisions mean in practice (assuming the report is true).

In the next 2 years Americans are looking at the Democrats to see what they do with their newly found majority. If they stray too far from their base of raising the minimum wage, rethining the Iraq strategy (not exiting though), and not raising taxes they're going to lose the middle that gave them their control and voters will realize voting for a Democrat means voting for the entire Democratic platform... which means you'll lose moderate voters in a Presidential election and upcoming House and Senate elections.

I'm waiting to see exactly WHAT the democrats do before I pass judgement and I'm waiting to see HOW the Republicans respond... all of this speculation, however interesting, isn't enough for me to pass judgement... I don't think the end of the world is here.

robert said...

In my opinion, there is very little the Democrats could do in the next two years that will swing things back towards the Republicans. It's going to get worse for the Republicans before it gets better.

The Republicans in Washington made some serious political errors, damaged their image, and often times abandoned their base's principles. It's going to take a while before that kind of damage can be repaired. I believe that this wasn't as much a vote for the Democrat agenda as it was a vote against the problems with the Republicans. America as a whole generally supports the conservative agenda. But when the "party of morals" blows it, you know their base isn't going to simply rally and let them off the hook.

Kevin said...

Robert I agree that this midterm election had less to do with a support for the Democratic agenda and more to do with being tired of Republican mistakes, behavior, and precieved results of the policy in Iraq... and if Democrats can realize that, stay towards the middle, and actually get middle of the road policies implemented in the next two years then they're goig to be strong in 2008.

If Republicans wake up and realize they need to clean out their ranks, add some fresh moderate or young and honest untainted candidates to their mix (the old leadership needs to be stepping aside) they can make a strong showing.

It's going to be interesting to see how each side behaves... and I hope with a hope that is probably unrealistic, that they'll actually try and discuss real issues that they can actually do something positive with.

john said...

Ahh, the infamous unnamed sources. Considering that this website is owned by the same people who own the Washington Times, I'll wait to see what Pelosi and the Democrats actually do and not freak out based on articles like this.

Dennis, your selected quotes put some of the story out of context. For example, Pelosi made the comment about no seniority on the intelligence committee in response to a question about having a former judge, who was impeached, being in charge of a committee - not regarding punishing people who "played ball" with Republicans in the past.

professor ed said...

"Scutlebut" is saying there is a good chance that Michael Steele, the GOP candidate for Senate in Maryland, is being strongly considered as the next national chair of the GOP. I very much hope this information proves accurate.