| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Nancy Pelosi’s Dilemma |
| 2004-05-10 |
| Having loudly raised her own criticism of the Iraq invasion before it began and ever since, the California liberal leader finds herself stymied by the Democrats’ minority status, which prevents the calling of congressional investigations into Mr. Bush’s rationales for the invasion and the chaos in its wake. ...The Republican majority in Congress, she laments, has made Democratic efforts to force any real congressional review of the war and its aftermath impossible. Ms. Pelosi cites a recent House Republican insistence that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, in briefing Republican and Democratic House members, do so separately. That, she says, was an indication of the partisanship that dominates discussion of the war in the House. Sounds like an efficient way to have at least one briefing where information can be dispensed without grandstanding. Also reduces leaks. Ms. Pelosi’s own words fairly drip with dismay that public opinion polls, while indicating increasing voter concern that the country is heading in the wrong direction in Iraq and in foreign policy generally, also show that Mr. Bush’s personal appeal remains strong. |
| Posted by:RWV |
| #17 Ruprecht: The XVII Amendment was passed on the basis that the state legislatures were corrupt and therefore the Senators elected from them were corrupt also. Ernest Brown points out a agood example. It was another important step in the atomization of American society and removal of power from the people and states. It is fashionable to talk about how the American people are apathetic about local politics. Local politics can be boring, but they become positively narcotic when states and towns can no longer make even the most routine decisions about roads, sewers, and schools due to overweening Federal regulations. Why get involved when your involvement has no effect on anything anyway. I'm not saying that the Federal government doesn't act as a check on state power in a positive fashion at times. Nor do I mean to imply that all Federal legislation is bad. I just think that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of Federal Power over States Rights. We need to start moving it in the opposite direction. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-05-10 7:38:21 PM |
| #16 Jen & Ruprecht, It's because people like George Hearst (William Randolph's dad) literally BOUGHT their Senate seats via bribing the state legislators. Imagine Bill Gates buying a Washington Senate seat and you'll have a good idea why the Progressives had a bug up their bum about it. Ironically, now the only ones who can afford to run are, you guessed it, the super-rich. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2004-05-10 7:14:21 PM |
| #15 I agree would also like to see the XVII Amendment repealed. In one move it would help to restore some of the balance between the Feds and the States as few Senators would survive long by pushing for bills and policy that take power from the states. I'm still a bit bewildered how it was passed in the first place. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-05-10 4:26:05 PM |
| #14 The only way the state legislatures should be given back ANYTHING like that is if reapportionment is taken away from them for their own districts. The Jerrymandering is so bad out here that if California were an independent coiuntry, Freedom House would only call us "Partly Free" |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-10 4:23:07 PM |
| #13 'Scuse me, CP, but you're supposed to say "F*ck the Nazis!" and that's it. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-10 4:21:15 PM |
| #12 Told ya! Told ya! Ack! Legislature knows better! Legislature knows better! Ack! Polit Bureau! Polit Bureau! Ack! Central Committee! Central Committee! Ack! |
| Posted by: Churchills Parrott 2004-05-10 4:18:30 PM |
| #11 Preach it, RWV. Having the Senators appointed by the state legislature is infinitely more akin to representative government than these state-wide popularity contests we have now. I would support a repeal of the XVII Amendment and a return to the way our Founding Fathers originally had it. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-10 3:12:26 PM |
| #10 Mr. Davis, that's a relatively loose interpretation of the 17th amaendment. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. The states are the people. Changing the selection of senators to direct election by the people of a state instead appointment by the elected state governor or the elelcted state legislature in no way diminishes the role of states in government. You have only to look at Robert Byrd to see that senators represent the interests of their states rather than those of the people of the nation. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-05-10 3:08:27 PM |
| #9 and why the hell would anyone want to listen to pelosi...just hope she is booted but we are a little off here in california.. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-05-10 1:39:13 PM |
| #8 Wish we could do something about that, Mr. D! (and to add to Deacon's thought, why should America have to listen to these headaches from the so-called Minority party?) |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-10 1:30:39 PM |
| #7 ruprecht, The senators used to represent the states. Since the XVII amendment they represent the people. The states no longer have a voice in the federal government. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-05-10 1:29:10 PM |
| #6 By congresspersons I meant anyone who is elected to congress. This includes both Senators and Representatives. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2004-05-10 1:02:52 PM |
| #5 Deacon, you wrong on a subtle point (which would make your arguement stronger). Congresspersons are not elected to represent their respective states intrests. They are elected to represent their district. The Senators represent the states interests. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-05-10 12:48:01 PM |
| #4 Deacon, excellent observation! Why indeed? |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-10 12:05:07 PM |
| #3 What I don't like the most about these liberals is they think just because they were elected by the people in their respective states they have a mandate to export their extreme liberal views on the rest of wheather we want it or not. All congresspersons are elected to represent their respective states interests, not to try to change the rest of the U.S. to be more like them. I would love the opportunity to tell all of them to mund their own states business and stay out of mine. I don't get to vote for them so why should they have such a large role in deciding what happens to me? This includes Ted Kennedy et al. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2004-05-10 11:56:59 AM |
| #2 Cicadas awaken from their 17 year cycle, and bug-eyed hysterical loon Pelosi is elected minority leader Coincidence? I think not |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-10 10:51:57 AM |
| #1 She should ask herself, "Why do they hate us donkeys." |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-05-10 10:48:24 AM |