WP: New Congress Unlikely to Rush Toughest Issues: Iraq, Immigration Demand More Time

[DeepModem Mom]

New Congress Unlikely to Rush Toughest Issues
Iraq, Immigration Demand More Time
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 27, 2006; Page A03

Democratic lawmakers vow to come roaring out of the blocks when they assume control of the next Congress, passing several top-priority bills in the first 100 hours. Absent from that list, however, are the knottiest problems that bedeviled the outgoing Congress, including immigration, domestic surveillance and the war in Iraq.

Voters handed Democrats a mandate for change on Nov. 7, politicians and analysts agree. But party leaders are drawing a sharp distinction between popular, comparatively simple issues, such as raising the minimum wage, and more complex matters for which they have yet to propose solutions or even outline a plan for hearings.

The go-slow strategy carries some risks, the analysts say, because restless voters may see the new Congress as having no more boldness or problem-solving skills than the "do-nothing Congress" denounced in many political ads this fall. But Democratic leaders probably are correct in sensing that Americans will give them several months to tackle the stickiest issues, such as Iraq and immigration, provided something is done before the next election, these observers said.

Moving deliberately and cautiously on difficult issues "is a reasonable game plan," said Norman J. Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, co-author of the book "The Broken Branch," a critical assessment of Congress. "You've got to come in and signal that you're about change," he said, but "you also want to show that you have your own agenda."

Congressional Democrats seem to be following that strategy with their plan for the 110th Congress's first 100 hours. The items include raising the minimum wage, enacting the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations, cutting interest rates on college loans and ending what the speaker-elect called "tax giveaways for Big Oil."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600824.html

[still_one]

1. why would I believe the MSM?

They told us that Iraq had WMDs, they were wrong

They told us that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, they were wrong

They told us that the war in Iraq would be short, they were wrong

They told us there would NOT be a civil war in Iraq, they were wrong

They tell us the economy is doing great, THEY ARE WRONG

They told us the Democrats would not win the Senate, they were wrong

In fact for the last six years most of the crap they told us was either wrong, deliberate misleading, OR LIES

Why should I believe them now?