Interesting! Maybe I’m wrong about whether fiscal conservative Republicans could be an audience for such proposals.
I still say, though, that they need to be geared toward a set of priorities very distinct from the Pubs, just as the CwA was distinct from Dem priorities; even if there are things thereint hat appeal to some Pubs, that shouldn’t be the goal. The goal is to present a clear alternative.
Daniel
I suppose this is getting a bit off topic, but why not look at the government being ‘handcuffed’ and not able to spend in another light. There are loads of programs out there that are inefficient, unneccessary or just plain stupid. Why not force congress to cut out/stop funding these programs at crunch time instead of ‘having the flexibility to dip into the red’? I would think, if framed in these terms, you could get fiscal conservatives dry humping this ‘pay as you go’ proposal.
Like a three-balled terrier. If the Dems could actually offer (and follow-up) a program of efficiency and responsibility in spending, I’d vote for them in a heart-beat. But I need to see some substantial action and commitment here, not just talk and smoke. C’mon, Dems…stand for something!
Sure–that would be a great platform for Republicans. Or for Democrats, but Republicans are likely to have a much broader definition of “unnecessary” than Dems will.
The Dems need to stand for something, but again, it doesn’t need to stand for the things that the Republicans used to stand for. There are plenty of great traditional issues for which they can stand; Pelosi mentioned a few of them.
Daniel
Is it still technically dry humping if I’ve already creamed my jeans over such an idea?
But we’re pulling away here. I think this is a very good and strong overall proposition by Pelosi. It sets some clear ideas as to what Democrats want to accomplish, most of which fall into “sane and obvious” ideas that will easily appeal, while still throwing a bone or two to the liberal edge that needs to be mollified, and throwing a bone to disaffected conservatives.
Her timing is also pretty darn good - not just in relation to the Foley scandal, but because it’s going to be hard for Democrats to get pinned down on some of the vaguer concepts (what new rules will “break the link between lobbyists and legislation”, anyways?) before the election.
Nitpick: The word “visionary” is more often used in a pejorative sense, to mean “unrealistically idealistic.” Not quite the opposite of “specific,” but pretty near.
You mean pulling out? 
I agree, and as I stated about McCaskill, if all/most of the Democratic hopefulls start hammering these issues and using the some of the same wording, and start backing it up with concrete 'how’s, this could be huge.
A number of states already have minimum wages in the range of $7.25, some are even higher. And I’m sure that, adjusted for inflation, there were times when the minimum wage was higher than $7.25. Right now its worth the lowest it has been in a very long time.
I think there is actually significant support for raising the minimum wage, and since Bush doesn’t actually enjoy being unpopular, maybe that would bring him around.
It may be used in a pejorative sense sometimes, but that’s clearly not how I’m using it, and I’m not using it in any sense as an opposite of specific. CwA was a visionary, specific document.
Daniel
Why not go whole hog and make $10.00 or $20.00 or even more?
What are you trying to say here? “Any increase in the minimum wage would be catastrophic?” If you’re going to try for a slippery slope argument, can you at least tell us where the slope is?
Because that’s stupid, that’s why.
Daniel
In other words, more socialism.
You might wanna include an actual argument here.
That’s right. I encourage you Republicans to trumpet loudly about your opposition to the minimum wage, and to equate the minimum wage with Socialism whenever possible. It’s a surefire issue!
Daniel
Nothing of the kind under Day 1, Day 2, or “time remaining.” (I’m sure you are not one of those impenetrable idiots who would classify a minimum wage hike as an instance of socialism.)
Based on the experience of states that have enacted only slightly more modest minimum-wage hikes, that’s very, very doubtful. See also here.
I’m pretty sure he considers the existence of a minimum wage to be an instance of socialism. Hell, judging from past performance, Crafter Man probably thinks that whole “paying wages” thing is socialism. Real capitalism is shanty towns and company stores!
Like it matters. I don’t think Steny even has an opponent this year. 
So an increase of two bucks in the minimum wage, in places that haven’t already increased it by that amount or more, is as bad as an increase of $5 or even $15, and it’s socialism. Anybody else want to make charges without explaining them?