I am becoming disappointed in Ms. Pelosi.

[Kelly Rupert]

After the brilliant successes of November 2006, I thought for sure that Washington was going to be a different place. I thought this would be the beginning of competent, open, government that kept its promises to the people and its constituency. I thought this would be a sea change in which the Congress would finally work for the people and not itself. I thought that we would have learned from the Republicans the importance of the appearance of cleanliness.

I find myself soundly rebuked by reality.

(Never mind her prematurely taking impeachment "off the table," I think that might have been politically necessary, though it was a slap in the face of her base.)

I'll start, as always, with Iraq. It is well past a month after the election, and we still have no coherent view on the war, and no unified voice. I understand the importance of debate--but this moment is an extraordinary one. The people of America have rejected the President's viewpoint, and are looking for an alternative. The electorate is crying out for leadership on Iraq, and this is our chance to finally wrest the issue of national security away from the Republicans for good. What do we provide? Very little. Murtha wants a quick redeployment. Reyes wants to increase the troop level. In between, each Democrat with a national voice has provided a fine, articulate, nuanced position--but there's no unified voice. In a time in which America is asking us to lead, we are just as disorganized and uninspiring as the Republicans. It would be a pity if the Right managed to find a unified, compelling voice before we did--and would be the biggest missed chance for the Democratic party in memory.

Similarly, Ms. Pelosi seems intent on squandering what credibility in the war on terror we have. After repeatedly promising to follow all the 9/11 recommendations, she has decided to ignore a critical aspect--the reorganization of Congressional intelligence oversight. She has sent a clear message--that she cares more about preserving her Congressional power than good governance.

Choosing power over policy? That would be the same trap that ended the Republican majority. But yet it is a consistent theme in Ms. Pelosi's actions thus far. She has at every turn attempted to appoint loyalists over qualified candidates. She attempted to appoint the loyalist Murtha--a fine voice on Iraq, but disastrously opposed to ethics reform--as her deputy, despite a lack of Congressional support. She continued her campaign of loyalty over ethics with the attempted appointment of Hastings to chair the Intel committee, apparently believing that nothing says "honesty and ethics" like a man who was impeached and convicted for bribery. Having that blow up in her face, she appointed Reyes, who is in my mind an absolute disaster.

He has suggested killing al-Sadr, apparently unaware of the downsides of martyring a charismatic demagogue. He has advocated an increase in troop counts. He, when asked by a reporter, incorrectly claimed that al-Qaeda was Shi'a (it is a Sunni extremist group). He could not even venture a guess as to the composition and origins of Hezbollah, the Shi'a Iranian proxy group. He does not know the first thing about Iraq, al-Qaeda, the Israeli situation, or the Middle East in general. He is an incompetent buffoon. He is the new chair of the House Intelligence Committee, thanks to Ms. Pelosi.

Is the 110th Congress going to be better than the 109th? Hell yes. Am I glad that we won? Yes. Are we better than the Republicans? By a mile. I'm not saying these are actual major problems yet. They're simply things I find very troubling, and perhaps indicative of a mindset that leads the Democrats into the same swamp in which the Republicans wallowed to their death.

Could we be doing better? Absolutely. The Democrats came in with a mandate for change. I'd like to see us holding Ms. Pelosi's feet to the fire throughout the next two years to ensure that the House continues to represent the people and not itself. If we don't, we just might find ourselves back in the minority party. If 2006 taught us anything, it's that the American people don't care for incompetence.

Edit: Yes, yes, the Congress hasn't been sworn in yet. And I don't think we're ACTUALLY incompetent; if I did I wouldn't be a Democrat. But the 2008 race has already begun, and the American people are watching. This is all about appearances, and while we're the good guys, we don't look good right now. You may be inclined to feel forgiving of the Congress. Given Congressional approval ratings, I think it's fair to say that the electorate is not.

[Monkeyman]

1. Here talk to her

http://democraticleader.house.gov

[Kelly Rupert]

3. I've sent a letter on each of the issues I mentioned n/t

[demnan]

2. She hasn't been sworn in yet

At least let her be sworn in before you invent the circular firing squad.

[Kelly Rupert]

6. When she's making declarations of policy intent,

I see nothing wrong with criticizing those aspects which are borne more of politics than a desire for good policy. It is the criticism-is-treason, echo-chamber mindset that led the Republicans to where they are now.

[nini]

7. No.. I think she should have solved all the world's problems by now!!!

:sarcasm:




You'd think letting them get set and in office would be allowed. Let's see what they actually do once in power - I guess that's too much to ask of some.

[Kelly Rupert]

9. I suppose it's easier

to attack the positions I haven't taken than those I have.

[nini]

26. No..I think we need to let them settle then judge them on what they ..

actually do.



Who really knows how much of what we've heard has been posturing at this point?


I will reserve judgment until there is something concrete to judge.

[Howardx]

23. no kidding

lets see what happens first

[Deja Q]

33. Seconded.

I should be ashamed as I thought the elected Dems didn't come in until 2007. :shrug:

[Kelly Rupert]

43. I take it you did not actually read my post.

I said nothing about legislation, or for that matter anything about their use of power--merely about the first steps that have yet been taken.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

4. Planning a die-in in my D congressman's office end of Dec

This is so totally unacceptable! Perhaps sending
in 20,000 additional troops! And everybody's off
for the holidays. Sick!

[Avalux]

5. Um.....perhaps this could wait until the 110th takes office.

I'd consider your criticism a bit premature; would be a good idea to give them a chance before inferring incompetence.

[Kelly Rupert]

8. The 2008 race begins

on November 8 2006. It is not premature to criticize appearances.

[Avalux]

19. I see where you're coming from now.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Buzz Clik]

24. No kidding!

I can see a post saying, "I'm nervous about what might happen" or "Nancy makes me anxious. I hope it turns out okay." But this? Can you say obsessive/compulsive?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. ahem.

Have you ever worked inside the Bloatway? Do you have the slightest perception of how many layers, levels and personnel need to be dealt with?
First of all, there are close to a billion committees and subcommittees. OK, so it is actually 1/10 of that, but you get the idea. For each committee, she has to deal with

a) getting rid of the corrosive elements (GOP aides) who have actively worked to dismember government.
b) securing the data that may still exist. (the shreding in NASA, EPA and other fed agencies is a drop in the bucket.
c) selecting talented people to staff these committees, not out of some political mindset, but from experience and talent. (think IraqNam reconstruction)
d) dealing with huge egos among 200+ congresscritters, many of whom don't quite understand what "majority" means, except as an entry to K-Street lobbywhores.
e) Selecting talented congresscritters to run the most important committees.
f) organizing all committees so they work in concert, not against each other, or worse, trying to stake out territory on someone else's turf.
g) working out the bugs on the first 100 days.
h) getting authors and legal scholars to review and correct errors in the beginning legislation.
i) getting a feel for all that legislation.
j) fixing the budget process because the GOP left a pile of unpaid and unbudgeted manure on the Democrat Party menu.
k) all of the above.

in other words, GIVE HER AN EFFIN BREAK.
DO you have a clue of how much is on her plate?

As for Reyes, she at least has someone who is intellectually honest, perhaps misinformed, but honest. The person he replaces, J. Harman, is a GD-neocon AIPAC clone who would have destroyed everything we worked for.

[Kelly Rupert]

17. So it's cool that she's making bad appointments

because she's got a lot to do. I don't recall us offering Republicans the same courtesy.

[Pyrzqxgl]

55. I don't think she is making bad appointments.

you sound like you've been listening to Faux.

[Jim Sagle]

75. She regurgitates it so we don't have to watch it.

[kiteinthewind]

80. Just FYI, Reyes is a strong supporter of AIPAC. Here is a link...

http://www.stopaipac.org/spystory.htm
:hi:

[Danieljay]

11. Give it some time....

They haven't even started yet OR sworn in. Perhaps they are organizing and building their case. We'll see. Pelosi is too damn smart to tip her cards this early in the game. Big things are coming I believe.

Now, that being said, the fact that most of the Democratic Party seems to be willing to continue funding this effed up cluster f#@k in Iraq is quite discouraging. The Democratic party should immediately stop funding this debacle and re-deploy the troops immediately. We've lost nearly 3000 men and women, some 25,000 have been wounded and whos lives have been ruined, at least 500,000 Iraq civilians are dead, thousands more wounded, and the health effect of the depleted uranium ammunitions will effect their lives for generations. Bush has ruined this country and risks bringing the world in to a disaster of epic proportions militarily and environmentally. The man should be tried for crimes against humanity.

[Mist]

12. I think it's appropriate to wait for 100 days (about 3 months) AFTER the

new Congress has been seated to start criticizing.

[Kelly Rupert]

14. The 2008 race has already begun.

The American people are not as forgiving of their representitives as you.

[Pyrzqxgl]

57. Maybe that should be potential 2008 candidate's problems,

not yours or mine.

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. After 12 years of GOP House rule and 6 years of Bush

we have to be a little more reasonable in our timetable. She hasn't even been sworn in yet but here and elsewhere Pelosi (and Democrats generally) are being thrown under the bus. Anyone who has an expectation that things are going to change overnight is going to be disappointed.

BTW, speaking of Pelosi being the face on things...It occurs to me that we seem to be putting alot of the burden on Pelosi's shoulders. The reason I'm pointing it out is that it wasn't that long ago everything was Tom DeLay and Boehner, not so much Hastert. Why aren't we putting pressure and promise on Majority Leader Hoyer and the House Whip?

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Because DeLay ran Congress while Hastert watched.

This Congress is being run by Pelosi.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

72. Actually, this congress has yet to convene.

The only congress that really matters at this point (before the 110th) is the congress of leadership taking place as we speak- to decide on how to lead the 110th, to create an agenda, and to not show all of the cards strategically before the game has even begun.

Perhaps impeachment is off the table. Perhaps it isn't. If you had a hand with 4 aces, would you gloat about it to your poker buddies? Or would you keep a poker face and remain calm?


This game is played on both sides by their leadership- deciding when to fold, when to bid, when to take your opponent for all they're worth. Nancy Pelosi hasn't gotten to where she is now by being a lousy poker player. Nor would she have been able to become the incoming speaker without the confidence of the party. Apparently, as we showed in the election this year, we've learned something about "strategy" from the other side

I personally believe that the soon -to- be Madame Speaker is an excellent student of history- both of our party, and of that of the soon-to-be minority (Oooh, it feels nice to be able to type that!) party.

It's really easy to criticize people before they are in a position of power. The real test of character is what that person does with the power. If it is used for good, then they are an instant hero. Likewise, if it is abused, then the leader is termed "a bum". To imply that Congresswoman Pelosi is not representing the majority in congress is both unfair to the future leader as she does not yet hold the reigns of power, and shows a lack of understanding that there are more things going on behind the scenes that even we "political junkies" are not able to discern from our seats here on the "internets"

Perhaps we can revisit this issue in a few months. I'm the first to admit that no one's perfect. Everyone is bound to make mistakes. Yes, that includes both Ms. Pelosi, and myself. If I am wrong about her leadership abilities, I'll be more than willing to admit it.

[Cosmocat]

45. It just if flat retarded ...

The republicans were god aweful horrible for over a decade, and over the last six years spiraled into the most dysfunctional and institutionally corrupt congress this country has, and god willing ever will, see ... And, not a gall darn word was said about Hastert until the Foley scandal erupted ...

Just in determining that they were going to replace standard operating rules for the house, Pelosi has done more without actually taking office that Hastert and his congress did in two years ...

[Cocoa]

16. you expected a unified position on Iraq?

I don't see on what basis you should have expected that.

[Kelly Rupert]

18. I expected nothing.

And am receiving it.

[Cocoa]

22. that's different than what you wrote in your original post

quite different. Just sayin'...

[Kelly Rupert]

39. Not at all.

I expected the Democrats would govern well, and am having doubts, as her first steps are not in the right direction.

I would hope that the Democrats would have a unified voice on Iraq for the reasons I listed, but do not expect that.

[Pyrzqxgl]

58. She has to get every conceivable stripe of Democrat to agree on a concept

that will unite her party and enable them to take it to the Republicans & Bush. Not everyone in her party agrees with her and she's going to have to make some compromises to make it all work. Give her a break.

[sallyseven]

36. Yes because your not seeing the whole picture.

You can whine and cry and go nuts along about April 1 if there is a problem. Before that time maybe you should wait and see. Only children are so impatient when they don't get instant gratification. Slow down.

[Kelly Rupert]

40. I am talking about immediate appearances

as relates to political prospects for 2008. This is apparently a very difficult thing for people to understand, even with a disclaimer specifically pointing that out.

[On the Road]

20. She Supported Alcee Hastings for Committee Chair?

I thought she decided to pass him over.

[Kelly Rupert]

21. She did pass him over.

But initially indicated that he would be her choice.

[DURHAM D]

25. I would not want to serve on a committee with you. n/t

[blondeatlast]

59. Best reply to the OP yet! nt

[On the Road]

32. See, I Think Pelosi Has been Politcally Astute Here

She publicly supported Murtha, probably to keep a prior commitment, prbably knowing he was going to lose to Steny Hoyer. She indicated initial support for Alcee Hastings but wisely changed her mind, probably under political pressure.

In both cases, Pelosi cemented personal her own political relationships, or at least avoided schisms, without putting the party at risk from scandal. I care about the outcome and so far she seems to have avoided the pitfalls.

[Kelly Rupert]

35. Yes, I can see how supporting terrible candidates

is politically astute. I suppose the Harriet Miers nomination was politically astute, too. Nothing says "astute" like pushing for an ill-qualified candidate, then retreating under fire.

[On the Road]

69. Let Me Tell You Something, Honey

Supporting terrible candidates (if that's what you think they are) can be brilliant politics. Especially if they don't win and cost the party.

And oh yes, Harriet Miers was a party member coequal to GWB. Eschewing her for the nomination would have cost Bush political capital and divided the party.

[cassiepriam]

27. Taken * six years to screw up the world, can we give her more than 6 weeks

to fix it??

[Kelly Rupert]

38. Did you bother reading what I wrote?

Or are you just in knee-jerk Defend Pelosi mode?

[cassiepriam]

47. I read every word..... tsk tsk, getting an attitude isn't helping you.

[Kelly Rupert]

49. Then apparently you did not understand

that I am not talking about her actually Making The World Perfect Again, but rather giving off the appearance that things were different. Pelosi's early actions have been largely missteps, and I can't help but think that we're not looking much better than the Republicans at this point. I'm sure we have time to turn things around, but I think in order to get on the right course there need to be people telling the Democrats to get on the right course.

[blondeatlast]

60. "..we're not looking much better than the Republicans at this point."

Holy hell--even the "so-called liberal media" admit we are looking better than the RRR--apparently you are quite alone in your assessment.

You may want to avoid this place once the primary wars begin if you are that delicate...

[J Miles]

65. I think a lot of people are in that mode

The blind party loyalty I see here is disturbing.

[blondeatlast]

67. I've been here since '05 and seen more criticism of the party here than you

would ever see at Free Republic.

The difference being that we criticize intelligently, something the OP failed to do.

Sure, after 24 posts you are well-qualified to make that assessment.

[J Miles]

68. I'm talking about this thread SPECIFICALLY

That's where I'm seeing blind party loyalty.

You and others are saying that the OP failed to criticize the party intelligently, but I've yet to see any intelligent arguments against the OP's arguments.

[Zenlitened]

28. Huh? Please, check your facts. Many of your statements are flat-out...

... contradicted by any number of reports.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Pelosi pushes ethics, intelligence oversight

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Friday, December 15, 2006

(12-15) 04:00 PST Washington -- House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi pushed ahead Thursday with two of the Democrats' 2006 campaign pledges, creating a special panel to oversee the intelligence community's secret multibillion-dollar budget and starting to study the controversial idea of turning over the House's ethics process to outsiders.

The impetus for the new House intelligence budget oversight panel came from the Sept. 11 commission's July 2004 report that called for Congress to shake up the way it deals with the continuing global terrorist threat.

Pelosi's plan will create a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel within the House Appropriations Committee. Members will be drawn from the Appropriations and Intelligence committees and will have jurisdiction over the top-secret intelligence budget, which outside estimates put at more than $30 billion a year.

More:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/15/MNGSBN092U1.DTL

From Rep. Pelosi herself, via The Huffington Post:

Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker

November 17, 2006

This morning, I visited our brave men and women at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center. It is a place of prayers, of honor, of respect, and reflection. And I left there more committed than ever to bringing the war to an end.

I told my colleagues yesterday that the biggest ethical issue facing our country for the past three and a half years is the war in Iraq.

This unnecessary pre-emptive war has come at great cost. Nearly 2,900 of our brave troops have lost their lives and more than 21,000 more have suffered lasting wounds. Since the war began, Congress has appropriated more than $350 billion, and the United States has suffered devastating damage to our reputation in the eyes of the world.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-nancy-pelosi/bringing-the-war-to-an-en_b_34393.html

From Voice of America

Pelosi Vows Action on 9/11 Commission Recommendations, Other Steps

By Dan Robinson
Capitol Hill

14 December 2006

The incoming Speaker of the House of Representatives says Democrats will push for creation of a new bipartisan committee to oversee how money is spent on and by the U.S. intelligence community. VOA's Dan Robinson reports, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi spoke about the issue in a Capitol Hill news conference as she reiterated Democratic objectives when the new Congress convenes in January.

(snip)

At the top of the agenda is full implementation of the recommendations of the independent commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 terrorist acts.

Pelosi says there will be legislation to ensure that 100 percent of shipping containers destined for the U.S. are screened before reaching American ports.

(snip)

In addition to the September 11 recommendations, Democrats also plan legislation to increase the U.S. minimum wage for workers, ease financial pressures for college students, and direct funds to alternative energy by reducing subsidies for oil companies.

More:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-12-14-voa75.cfm

And on and on an on.

http://news.google.com -- it's free, and easy to use! :hi:

[Kelly Rupert]

34. You realize that those don't actually contradict what I say.

Pelosi has a viewpoint on Iraq. I said the Democrats had no unified position on Iraq. I said Pelosi is not going to reform Congressional intelligence per the 9/11 committee's report. Hell, the article you gave me agrees with me!

The new panel, which breaks up some traditional House fiefdoms, still doesn't go as far as some of the options proposed by the bipartisan commission.

If you say "We're going to do everything the 9/11 commission wants," that means everything. Giving me articles about 9/11 reforms that are not related to Congressional oversight is nice, but...not really related to what I said. Giving me articles about her position on Iraq is nice, but, again, is not really related to what I said.

[Zenlitened]

51. Good point. She SHOULD be re-organizing the Senate intelligence committees, too.

And RIGHT NOW, before she even takes up the House speakership.

You're right. We are SCREWN.

:crazy:

[Jim Sagle]

76. This is HUGHHHH!!!!!!!

[ClassWarrior]

29. Thank you for your concern.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Zenlitened]

30. Must be Pelosi's turn today...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2925187

:crazy:

[ClassWarrior]

31. Hmmmm... both newcomers...

Wonder if that means anything?

NGU.

[Kelly Rupert]

37. Apparently

having the remotest concern for the manner in which the Democrats govern--as well as their 2008 chances--means I'm a freeper. Rather telling of your mindset, sir.

[ClassWarrior]

41. Thank you for your concern.

NGU.

[KoKo]

42. Well, since you just joined here on November 7th .....folks might wonder

where you've been before November 7th since you are very concerned about Pelosi's actions.

:shrug:

[Kelly Rupert]

46. If you think I'm a troll, say it.

Don't hide behind "folks might wonder." I'm well aware that there is an entirely necessary institutional bias against relative newcomers.

And for the record, DU is not the only liberal site on the internet. Nor, for that matter, are all liberals born aware of DU. The fact that someone might interest in the community during the election--the period of highest activity and cross-posting in the liberal blogosphere--shouldn't be surprising.

[ClassWarrior]

50. I'm just concerned that so many newcomers are...

...so frightfully misinformed about Rep. Pelosi. That should be cause for concern no matter what other sites you might admit to frequenting.

:shrug:

NGU.

[Jim Sagle]

77. They're not trolls...they're just concerned.

[William769]

44. Speaking of appearances...

:eyes:

[Kelly Rupert]

48. It's rather disappointing

that any criticism of the Party is met with suspicion of ill faith.

[fuzzyball]

52. And...you will notice very very little will change in your life next 2 years.

[Vidar]

53. I highly agree, Kelly. She's giving credence to the old line that

there's no difference between democrats & republicans. She's a total sellout IMHO. Recommended.

[pat_k]

54. We need a champion to voice the public's outrage. She is an ANTI-CHAMPION. . .

. . .doing everything in her power to suppress outrage with her "off the table" pledge and her blather about "bipartisanship." Even worse, she is determined to muzzle any member who threatens to become a champion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3017332&mesg_id=3017739

. . .
The "conventional wisdom" and exhortations we've heard since the election -- "impeachment is off limits," "it's about issues, issues, issues," "suppress anger," "don't overreach," etc. -- aren't new. We heard them last month. We heard them last year. We have been hearing similar admonitions to be "pragmatic" and "tactical" or to "keep our powder dry" for decades because such admonitions are grounded in assumptions and patterns of thought that have resisted change for decades.

For the sake our national soul, the best thing the drivers of Democratic strategy could do would be to Get Out of Town, reconnect with reality, and listen to people like Curtis Gans and others who are calling on them to take a step back from tactical politics and get clear about the principles they are committed to and the goals they are passionate about: . . .

. . .
The biggest problem the Democratic Party has is the perception that Democrats are weak and unprincipled. It is hard to imagine a more effective way that Democrats can prove they are the party of strength and principle than to stand and fight for the Constitution.

What better time than now, when the principle of consent and the dictates of our Constitution are so desperately in need of a champion?

The Nov. 7th "wave" demonstrated the power of the public's growing dismay at the arrogant, irresponsible, and autocratic Bush Cheney White House. But the election could only give voters an indirect means of venting their anger, and as such, it did not fully tap into the anger or bring it into focus. . .

[Radical Activist]

56. Jump the gun much?

She isn't even in charge yet. Give her a chance.

[blondeatlast]

61. By all means, let's order the cake and the dress before she's even been asked.

KR, if you are that precious, you may want to avoid GD/P very shortly once the REAL primary wars begin.

[Clarkie1]

62. The best solution is for Democrats to unify behind the Iraq Study Group.

It's the only possiblity of Democratic unity re: Iraq policy.

Eventhough we are not setting the policy, that would at least present to the American public a Party that appeared reasonable and embracing a bi-partisan solution. It would be a great political move. I have recommended it on this board more than once.

Your other points about Pelosi speak for themselves. Politicians in general are a disappointing lot, whatever side of the aisle. Pelosi of course is one of the better ones, but a politician is a politician. Especially the ones that make a career out of it.

[ClassWarrior]

64. Yeah, let's ALL jump on the "Stall the Withdrawal" bandwagon!!

:eyes:

NGU.

[Clarkie1]

66. Well, Dems certainly aren't going to unite on a timetable, if that is what you favor.

edit: And even if they hypothetically did, it wouldn't change the administration's policy.

[pdxmom]

63. Give it time. The general populace isn't going to remember boo

about what Pelosi did in the 2 months before the Dems take back control, 2 years from now. Hell, the general populace doesn't remember what happened politically 2 months before the election...which is why October Surprises have been so effective. Their attention spans are short and they aren't policy wonks. No one is really watching at this point. They're Christmas shopping, visiting relatives and basically living their lives, unlike those of us obsessed by politics.

As for a unified position on Iraq...no need at this point. Right this minute, it's pretty enjoyable watching the Repukes turn on themselves and eat their own. Then let Congress come back, roll up their sleeves and see what happens.

[Voronski]

70. She wants oversight and transparency of the CIA & NSA

For that, I would walk over broken glass for her. Kind of hard for Chimpy to spy on us and squash social justice in Venezuela if we keep a close eye on the thugs he'd use to do it

[seaglass]

71. You are wrong about the 9/11 commission recommendations

The 9/11 Commission report called on Congress to overhaul the congressional intelligence system, but offered two options for achieving this goal (Pelosi chose the second):

For intelligence oversight, we propose two options: either a joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy or a single committee in each house combining authorizing and appropriating committees.

At a press conference today, Pelosi was asked why she had decided against “creating a joint House‑Senate intelligence body.” Pelosi explained that the 9/11 Commission had provided multiple options for intel reform, and “if they are giving you different alternatives, then implicit in that is that you can’t do them all.”

The right wing has now jumped on this quote, claiming it is evidence that Pelosi has abandoned her pledge to enact all of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations.

MORE
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/14/pelosi-911-commission/

And I want a credible link that Pelosi was seriously considering Hastings, not planted stories (by Harman), not rumors in the media, credible statement from Pelosi that she was going to choose him.

Maybe this will provides some insight for you:

The end of the Epic Harman-Hastings Drama

...Thus, Hastings' name was repeatedly floated by anonymous sources as a leading candidate -- likely by some who wanted to help Hastings get the job, likely from Harman's camp wanting to paint the impeached judge as her only real competition, likely from others with even less noble intentions wanting to harm Pelosi -- which, in turn, led to garden-variety Washington speculation and gossip about who would get this position. Idle chatter of this sort happens every day in Washington.

What transformed this mundane event from standard Washington chatter into a matter of virtual national obsession was that the media -- not followed by, but rather, as usual, led by, the right-wing propaganda machine -- concocted a towering scandal where none existed, based on a whole set of false and unsupported premises.

It was all based on the false claim that Pelosi had to choose between ranking-member Harman and "next-in-line" Hastings (which was false and based on a misunderstanding of how the Intelligence Committee operates), and that by rejecting Harman, it necessarily meant that Pelosi was going to appoint Hastings (which was also false and never supported by anything other than rank speculation, including in newspapers).

MORE
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_glenngreenwald_archive.html

Personally I would have preferred that Rush Holt got the Intel chair but I will wait to see what happens before I judge whether she made a poor choice or not. And no, I'm not pleased that Reyes didn't know the difference between a Shi'ite and a Sunni.

[Imagevision]

73. Bush needs $160 Billion, Bush/McCain want 30,000 more troops to go to Iraq

I believe all these moves must be approved by the Congress, theorhetically this shouldn't be able to happen, January will be the envelope pushing month.
I hope Pelosi makes the team!

[JetCityLiberal]

74. Surprise, surprise...not n/t

[rodeodance]

78. I do not expect perfection--and do expect some errors. I too am

disappointed (angry)----that impeachment was taken off the table (I can see Jr having a good laugh).

[mopinko]

79. are you out of your mind?

did you just discover politics on nov 7? i think this might be the dumbest post i have seen on the greatest page yet.

[mzmolly]

81. Ahhh, she's not the minority leader yet.

I disagree that this is "all about appearances" however we can't "appear" until we have the stage in which to do so.