We're now in the Congressional Democratic majority's first 100 hours to clean things up and make some positive changes. More power to them. However, I would be remiss to not mention David Dreier's (R-CA) little petulant press conference before the swearing in. Poor "wittle wamb" doesn't think the Democrats are going to be nice to the minority party. Gosh, can anyone think of where a precedent like that originated? Hey David, does this ring a bell?
News Hounds describes the fun, as covered by Major Garrett on FOX News Special Report:
Major Garrett: "Key Republican, David Dreier, a member of the outgoing GOP leadership who has to date been reluctant to criticize Pelosi, today lashed out."
David Dreier: "There is tremendous inconsistency in virtually everything we are seeing in their plans, and I'm so disappointed. They've basically said they're going to stomp all over minority rights."
Comment: Dreier is complaining about what he sees in their plans, not in anything they've actually done. On top of that, Dreier, who was a part of the GOP controlled Congress is complaining about "minority-rights" when the Congress he was a part of refused to even respond to Pelosi when she asked for a "Minority Bill of Rights", which Dreier and fellow Republicans are now seeking for themselves.
In 2004, Pelosi submitted this "Minority Bill of Rights" to former Speaker Dennis Hastert, who refused to respond. The Washington Post reported on this in 2004.
"For decades, the party in power has used House parliamentary rules to limit the minority party's ability to amend bills and shape debates. But Democrats -- in the minority for 10 years after four decades of control -- say Republicans have gone to unreasonable lengths in recent years. GOP leaders dispute this, but congressional scholars and even some rank-and-file Republicans agree in whole or in part."
After giving Dreier his pulpit, Garrett went on to explain the bills Democrats are looking to pass, including ethics reform, spending and tax rules, implementing "unfinished 9/11 Commission reforms such as streamlining communications among first responders and beefing up inspections of air and ship cargo" (comment: notice how Garrett uses the term "unfinished" as though these were ever addressed by Republicans), raising the minimum wage, funding stem cell research, negotiating drug prices for seniors, lowering the interest rate on student loans, etc.
Garrett turned to Democrat Martin Frost to explain the Democrat's decision, "I think that Speaker Pelosi and the others are serious about providing a degree of procedural fairness, but you're not going to see it in this first week or two because they want to be able to pass things and say 'look, we did things right away.'"
MG: "One Democratic leader told Fox Republicans will have opportunities later to amend House bills."
CVH: "Nancy Pelosi has clearly committed to a set of principles that will involve the Republican party more often."
MG: "But Republican Dreier told Fox Democrats who once promised openness now appear defensive."
Comment: Garrett uses the term "but" to make it appear as though he is refuting what Van Hollen is saying - and goes on to only use a Republican's opinion to attempt to dispute Van Hollen's comment.
DD: "If you have confidence in your vision and your goals and what it is you want to accomplish, you clearly can allow other options to be put out there and then be victorious."
Comment: Then I guess Dreier, and the rest of his party, weren't exactly confident with the agenda the GOP has held for the last 10 years.
MG: "All this early political sparring is limited to the entirely to the House because in the Senate, Republicans will soon be the minority, they know they have all sorts of procedurals means to slow things down. Democrats, of course, know that too. That's why House Democrats want to move with all deliberate speed on their agenda."
Comment: Garrett clearly states that Republicans are going to attempt to use "procedurals" to try to slow down the Democrats' agenda - so why hasn't Garrett or Fox filed a report on that?