LOL! Another top political parody from Michael! I can almost hear Linda's retaliation coming up!

Nice job, MP...it must feel good to be able to write an upbeat Political parody now, huh? This OS is a good vehicle for it, too. I kept hearing the stuff the Right-Wing said about Pelosi during the campaign and when I watch & listened to her and looked at her recor and then compared it to the "noise" there was no resemblance. She's intelligent and well-spoken and appears to understand how to work politically. As far as "ethics", well, I'm sure the Republicans dug as hard as they could to find anything and it doesn't look like they did...which makes me more confident she can help clean up the atmosphere a bit in DC. I think America will find her much closer to the tune they want to hear than the outgoing Capitol Hill bunch. 5's and a hearty, "here's hoping" for our future.

Still, can't stand 2 more years of Bush. I think his family should be banned from political office for good.

We won't be hearing from Ter-Loon for a long time now. She's too embarrassed to post and I don't think that the RNC is finished updating its talking points.

Three fives and a happy dance for you! However, you should know that many of the voters in Ms. Pelosi's district think she's just too darned conservative...mwah ha ha!

love it...i love HER, too

We need to grow up!

So Linda is writing under "Ignorant Conservative"?

Very good title. I am trying to determine whether Ms. Pelosi understands economics. She appears to be astute enough to avoid unions in her family businesses (vineyard, hotel, restaurant), but she has convinced unions that she supports them, which has gotten her a lot of votes. Her support for increasing the minimum wage and universal health care are two other indications of her economic illiteracy. So, while her ascension to Speaker of the House is not good news for the nation, it might give a lot of material to some of us right wing parody writers and bring us out of semi-retirement.

Right, John... The Dow Jones would be at 13,200 if it had only kept up with inflation since Bush took the office, and population growth alone would've created 10 million jobs in 6 years if he'd left well enough alone... but economic and health-care fairness makes Nancy "economically illiterate"? Apparently, I.L., the right wing HAS updated their talking points! Now, all they have to do is make 'em make sense! Where have all the conservatives gone? 'Cause what the Repubs have sure ain't conserving anything! Not even their own power and privilege. Happiness is having a job when Don Rumsfeld doesn't.

Actually, I partially agree. The economy could probably have performed a little better over the past 6 years if President Bush and the Republican-led Congress had refrained from certain policies, such as steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies, which harmed consumers. But the one policy that they definitely got right was passing tax cuts. And that is the first policy that Speaker Pelosi wants to reverse.

Then you bring up the “fairness” issue. If you think it is fairer to be unemployed when the minimum hourly wage is $7.50 than to be employed and earning $5.15, then you will appreciate the 110th Congress. Similarly, if you think it is fair to have your medical procedures paid for by the government, i.e. other taxpayers, and you don’t mind waiting 6 months or more to have the procedures performed, then you will also appreciate the 110th Congress.

I, on the other hand, am hoping for gridlock.

JJ - may we assume that as somewhat of a Libertarian you entirely oppose the concept of a "Minimum Wage"? In some sort of antiseptic universe where not having enough money for both Rent and Food is not really a problem that might be viable, but in the real world people really do need BOTH of those things. At any rate, in many states an increase in minimum wage will not have much effect. If the state minimum is already higher (as it is here in California - it becomes $7.50/hr on Jan. 1, 2007) then the State minimum takes precedence in that State. For the most part, however, I expect you will get your "gridlock" wish. Hell, everything worked so damned well with the Republicans in charge of the Presidency and both Houses and things are so groovy now - who needs change, right? OH...one more thing about "economic illiteracy, JJ - were you were paying ANY attention to the spending vs. revenue habits of the Republicans the last six years? You think a couple bucks an hour for a small segment of the population is going to do grievous damage to our economy, but what about the all the Interest we pay on the National Debt EVERY SINGLE DAY - much of it to China...nobody wants to talk about what might happen if they decide to invest their money elsewhere. They don't seem so inclined at the moment...and they have the luxury of time in this regard...it CURRENTLY suits them to provide the money for us to spend like drunken sailors...they make a pretty penny off the interest, and we rush over there as fast as we can to buy more of their inexpensive products, so that's a double-economic plus for them...and they certainly need the growth, but what does it do for, or rather "to" us? Well, let's see...we get to ignore our ever-swelling deficit, throw a trillion dollars MORE (they still aren't including those "Special" expenditures in the Budget, are they? How's that for being "Economically Literate", not to mention honesty?) on top of the nearly 3,000 dead soldiers into that ever-sickening, never-ending, bloody farce in Iraq. But hey, why rock a happy boat? The Republican (and possibly your) argument against the Democrats is "how bad they would be"...I'm gonna let that hang in the air a minute and ask everyone to think about the Competence and Honesty and Integrity of the governance we've all received from the Federal level these past six years...when I do that I am personally not all that scared of the Democrats at this point. A question here occurs to me...what if...just WHAT IF...the Democrats pass some modest bills - they really don't have enough leverage now to do more than that - and things really do IMPROVE do some degree as a result? Any chance you would acknowledge it? Just asking, not assuming the answer here...man, I DO have to get back to my work...later...

Paul, you are correct that I oppose all government-mandated minimum wage laws, whether for $0.25 per hour or $25.00 per hour. I concede that it is a shame if a worker has to try to provide for a family while earning $5.15 per hour. But I think it is a bigger shame if someone is trying to get his first job and no one will hire him at $7.25 per hour because he doesn’t have experience. Minimum wages are paid for entry level positions, which are opportunities to obtain experience and build from there. If a minimum wage worker has not earned an increase after a year or so on the job, I would suggest that he/she work harder or switch jobs to another employer who will recognize his/her efforts. Legislating an increase in the minimum wage will cause more employers to use technology to replace labor with techniques such as grocery store self-check out lines. It is inevitable that increasing the minimum wage leads to increases in unemployment levels.

Paul, I sadly agree with your point about Republican spending during the past 6 years. In fact, I have written two song parodies about out-of-control Republican spending. It could be argued that borrow-and-spend Republicans are just as bad as (or worse than) tax-and-spend Democrats, but that would be somewhat like arguing whether lethal injection is worse than the gas chamber. I am very disappointed that federal spending increases have been so high with a Republican president, Senate, and House of Representatives and that President Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill. So, maybe it is a blessing in disguise that there will be Democrat majorities in both houses now to offset the Republican president and, with any luck, produce gridlock on spending legislation.