Our New Senate Majority Leader

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 14 2006, 02:22 PM) [snapback]348887[/snapback]</div>

http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=346811

 

I don't know how she'll react. She was hoping for Murtha (sp?).

I do feel that, in a leadership position, all eyes will be on him and Nancy is not going to tolerate anything that obstructs her stated position on ethics. If he can't take the heat, he may be asked to leave the kitchen.

 

Number one on Pelosi's list of things to accomplish in her first 100 hours:

"Day One: Put new rules in place to 'break the link between lobbyists and legislation.'"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 14 2006, 12:22 PM) [snapback]348887[/snapback]</div>

What would you have her do? You do know that she has no standing in the Senate?

OTOH, As these things go, this is pretty weak. Says that sure enough Harry has been legislating to the benefit of some of his constituents, and that he has relatives who are lobbyists. None of which is illegal or in violation of Senate Rules.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 14 2006, 01:18 PM) [snapback]348963[/snapback]</div>

Well, at least The Who are still relevant.

I say give candidates an allowance based on the positions that they're running for, paid for by the tax payers. Individual gifts should be illegal. Lobbyists can still lobby but their handlers cannot make donations. How 'bout that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 14 2006, 06:00 PM) [snapback]349104[/snapback]</div>

I agree that ,thats the only way to really clean up government.
BTW,John Kerry was one of the few to ever introduce legislation.It went far beyond the Mcain bill.

"The following year, a re-elected Kerry was in another lonely position as one of only five original sponsors of the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act, to provide for full public financing of Congressional elections. The measure would remove practically all special-interest money from House and Senate campaigns. (Kerry's colleagues were Wellstone, Leahy, John Glenn and Joe Biden--all Democrats.) "Kerry was totally into it," says Ellen Miller, former executive director of Public Campaign, a reform group pressing for the legislation. "He believes in this stuff."
In introducing the legislation, Kerry said on the Senate floor, "Special interest money is moving and dictating and governing the agenda of American politics.... If we want to regain the respect and confidence of the American people, and if we want to reconnect to them and reconnect them to our democracy, we have to get the special interest money out of politics." He was also a backer of the better-known McCain-Feingold legislation, a more modest and (some might say) problematic approach to campaign reform. But over the years he's pointed to the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act as the real reform. "It is a tough position in Congress to be for dramatic change in financing elections," says Miller. "It's gutsy to go out and say, 'Let's provide a financially leveled playing field so there is more competition for incumbents.' Kerry and Wellstone were the leaders and took a giant step. It was remarkable." "

 

I just hope the Dems will focus on straightening out the mess.
A bunch of finger pointing and head hunting are going to slow
down the progress that needs to occur. I understand some accountability
needs to be sought, just dont make THAT the focus.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Nov 14 2006, 06:48 PM) [snapback]349148[/snapback]</div>

Very nice. But haven't you figured it out, yet? Each party or legislative body alternates introducing reform legislation with a poison pill the other party/body must reject on "principle". That way everybody gets to take a bow and blame the other. One thing every proposal does is seriously hamper the ability of 3rd parties and independents to challenge the oligarchy. Would Lieberman have been able to run as an independent after losing the primary?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 14 2006, 11:07 PM) [snapback]349342[/snapback]</div>

You mean the Senate that will be run by Harry Reid? How would it go? Pelosi would get together with Reid and say, "Harry, you know I love you dearly, but I think we ought to have a commission to investigate you." Harry says, "Why, gee, Nan, I think that's a terrifc idea. Let's get right on it." Not to mention that an open ended congressionally mandated witch hunt probably isn't the first order of business for the new session.

I said it's "weak" for the reason I stated. There is nothing in what you posted that on its face is either illegal or unethical.

I won't rehash the difference between "took money from Abramoff" and "took money from an Abramoff client", but there are a range of other allegations out there -- which causes me to ask myself why you didn't go with them. Credibility? At least one of them did involve violation of actual Senate disclosure rules. (Unintentional, according to Reid, but a violation just the same.)

Actually history says that the results of independant panels are generally ignored if those who commissioned the panel don't like them.

 

I suspect there'll be some clean-slating going on. Start off by passing new rules, and from then on, whoever breaks the rules faces the consequences. My take is that's how Nancy wants to do it, since there's plenty of dirt under the bridge from all sides to begin with, but then again, she doesn't always get what she wants, does she?