Talk:110th United States Congress/Archive

Nancy Pelosi as the new Speaker of the House

Hey can we FINALLY remove Pelosi's picture from the top of the front page? It has been up since 2006! I know some factions in here want to gloat, but keeping her picture up longer than the Seven Years War reeks of partisanship and degrades the image of Wikipedia as a tool of reference for all to use. Enough already!

When will we be able to add this? It seems certain she will be taking Hastert's position in January. John D'Adamo 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would assert that we cannot add her as Speaker of the House until she has official been elected by the U.S. House to serve as Speaker. To do so would bias any other possible nomination and election of another to that position by the Democratic Caucus and the U.S. House. I noticed that we have added her already and wouldn't oppose leaving her listed as Speaker but I am still concerned that Wikipedia is listing something that is not factually accurate as of the present. Edward Lalone 03:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The press refers to her as "Presumptive Speaker". We should be able to list her with some appropriate footnote. To not list her at all keeps important information out of the article. And having her name listed in no way biases anything.Simon12 04:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. I have several major concerns about this listing of possible leaders in the U.S. House and Senate. The first being that Pelosi is not the Speaker of the House, nor is it even safe to assume that she will be the Speaker of the House.

Second, Robert Byrd is not yet the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. It is true that traditionally the senior Senator of the Majority Party is elected to be President Pro Tempore but this is not always the case and therefore Robert Byrd may in fact not be the next President Pro Tempore of the Senate. These two things concern me even less than the listing of Rahm Emanuel as the Democratic Caucus Chairman. And what really concerns me even more is that this isn't true. It's an open position. That coupled with the fact that Clyburn has been listed as the Majority Whip when that position has not yet been decided concerns me especially since there are others who have declared that they were thinking of running for that position. Let's just wait until next week when the Democratic Party elects its leaders. I think it is necessary that we hold off at least until next week to see how things shake out.

I do not believe that it is absolutely necessary that we list these people as having obtained these positions when they in fact have not especially when we will know more next week. And what is this about two people being listed as Minority Leader and Hastert by chance being left out as a possible Minority Leader. I think it is important that we footnote this information to make it clear that Hastert is not seeking the position and that the others are. This concerns me very much. If we need to footnote each one of these then lets do it but let's not be part of any shannigans. Edward Lalone 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Simon12. Whitewashing the information under the rationale that future events are uncertain is rather absurd and deprives the reader of useful and encyclopedic information. Taking sides in the intramural election is inappropriate, but when there's only one stated candidate then omitting this information betrays more of an agenda than conveying it. Call her "presumptive" or what have you. Regards, PhilipR 06:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed Pelosi and the other Senate Leadership, please be patient, we cannot pick an official just because a Party Nominated them. StayinAnon 08:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we can afford to be patient on filling in the blanks. However, no majority party's Speaker-designate has been denied election to that post by the full House in recent history, if ever. The majority party will always have an advantage in voting. In the Senate, tradition and unanimous consent plays a huge part chamber operations. Robert Byrd has been chosen to be Presidet Pro Tem by his caucus, and he will be elected, since those resolutions are adopted without objection. In fact Ted Stevens was never officially elected President Pro Tem by resolution in the 109th Congress, since he already had that position during the 108th. It was simply agreed that he would continue to serve in that capacity.

So, my two cents worth is that while these positions are not "officially" filled, we already know who will be filling those positions. This debate could continue ad nauseum, but I just wanted to make that point.

There's always a possibility of a grevious accident, injury or calamity. Gotta wait until the actual election by the full House takes place. Or qualify it with "likely" "anticipated" or similar. Yellowdesk 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not entirely based on potential accidents. In the case of Vice President Cheney, he has been elected to a 4 year post spanning two Congressional Terms. His seat as President of the Senate has been officially recognized since he was sworn into office on January 20, 2005. All that these candidates have done is be selected by a Political Party, but being nominated by a majority party is not officially recognized in any way by the Government of the United States. It will be once the floor vote is held, and even though it would be a massive shock if these candidates weren't chosen, we still can't take sides in this election. StayinAnon 08:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

House & Senate Leaders

All these names shouldn't be listed, until the newly sworn in 110th Congress (January 2007) has elected them to there respective positions. The only name that should remain is Dick Cheney ;(assuming he's still living by then), Cheney will continue as the President of the US. Senate until early into the 111th Congress ('til January 20, 2009). Crystal Balling isn't accurate. GoodDay 02:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Dick Cheney shouldn't be listed either. There's no 100% quarentee he'll still be VP of the USA (Senate Pres) by Jan. 3, 2007. Cheney from now 'til then, could die OR resign. Though it's highly unlikely, it's not impossible. GoodDay 02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you as well. People are simply trying to get a jump on this article and as a result confusing people who may not be as involved in the political process to know that none of this is true as of date. Edward Lalone 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I brought up this point as well but it seems that people want to be involved in political shannigans and political prophecy instead of just waiting until the information is available. I personally think the information should either a) be removed, or b) footnoted to clarify that these are not the actual officers of the Senate or House starting in January. Personally I think I simple explaination of possible candidates for these positions would suffice at the start of the section dealing with Leadership of the 110th Congress and it would be best to leave the fields blank. Edward Lalone 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to predict based on news reports the leadership of the 110th Congress please cite the news reports used to make such predictions. Remember that Wikipedia requires verifiability for encylopedic articles. Edward Lalone 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Senate Democratic leadership for the next Congress is being elected today. So far, Harry Reid has been elected Majority Leader, and Dick Durbin has been elected Majority Whip. Patty Murray has been elected Democratic Conference Secretary. The schedule for remaining leadership elections is as follows:

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - Senate Republican leadership Thursday, November 16, 2006 - House Democratic leadership Friday, November 17, 2006 - House Republican leadership

Valadius 16:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But, in all truthfulness; these are crystal-balling Or at least semi crystal-balling edits. For example, Harry Reid is the (soon to be majority) Senate Democrats choice to remain as their Floor Leader; Hypothetically, he could not want the job (in Jan.2007), he could be dead OR have resigned by then. There's another scenerio that is quite possible (in the Senate, for sure). The Senate is set to be configured as 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans & 2 Independants (leaning Democrat), between now & January 2007 ,either of these Independants could suddenly choose to caucus with the Republicans, which would quickly change the Democrats & their leaders from Majority back to Minority status. Even possible (though extremely unlikely), a Democrat could cross-the-floor and become a Republican. The Democrats (more or less) are depending on Independants. Therefore again, we should wait until January 3, 2007. GoodDay 17:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If only there was some tag we could put on the top of the article to indicate that this article contains information about scheduled or expected future events and that the content may change dramatically as the event approaches. Of course Harry Reid could die or not want the job he is expected to accept. In fact, while we're at it, we should indicate that every expected future event is subject to the world not ending, or everyone involved not dying suddenly, by that time. Lets give the reader a little credit for understanding that the future hasn't happened yet and that information included here is subject to change. We don't have to wait until January 3 to include sourced information (even of a speculative nature) in this article. All it does is put Wikipedia behind every news organization in the world. Sansbras 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, I'm alright with that. GoodDay 00:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some information for the masses on speculation for House and Senate leadership and employee positions. I agree that it is appropriate to include those names as they are confirmed, ideally from official press releases. However, once those names are known, I believe there is no speculation whatsoever on whether they will actually "remain" in that position for the 110th Congress. Leadership elections take place with the members and members-elect who will take office in the 110th (example: Trent Lott was elected Minority Whip 25-24, reflecting the 49 GOP sentors who will take office in January, and not the 55 currently in office). For positions that are technically voted on by the entire Senate (secretary, sergeant at arms, president pro tempore) or House (Speaker), the incoming majority has already voted on them and the sufficient approve their election in January if a roll call vote were taken. Other than a traditional roll call vote to elect the Speaker, appointments are usually affirmed by resolution which is approved by unanimous consent, with no recorded vote, since the minority party traditionally does not object to these appointments and there are no competing candidates for the position. It is possible that the votes could go differently, but that is so remote that it is reasonable to accept the party votes as fact, with the caveat that they do not become "official" until January.Dcmacnut 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The dispute however, wasn't about confirmation of who's been elected. We know whom the Democrats & Republicans have chosen as their leaders. The dispute was, alot could happen, between now and Jan. 2007 (deaths, resignations). GoodDay 22:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. My post was an effort to provide some historical context to the debate. While "a lot could happen," my point was the "ifs" don't really matter. The entire article on the 110th Congress is premature, and the "ifs" are far too unlikely to avoid proving the facts as we currently know them. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and have a personal interest and first hand expertise regarding congressional matters, having worked there for a number of years. I'm here to help and contribute as much as I can.Dcmacnut 04:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's terrific, your contributions will help & enhance Wikipedia. PS you should create yourself an account. GoodDay 13:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fictitious? No. Speculative? Yes. Likely? Oh, yes.

If one can't say that Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker in the 110th Congress, then this entire article should be deleted (AFD). After all, there is no such thing as the 110th United States Congress. It's just a prediction of future events. The world could explode before then. Any list of members is speculative. Well-informed and extremely likely, but technically still speculative. After all, election results are just the results of media exit polls and candidates' consession speeches. Have any states actually certified results? No members of the 110th Congress have begun their terms.
My point is this: It's OK to put here that so-and-so will do such-and-such during the 110th Congress. If some shocking event causes it to change, then do the Wikipedia thing: Edit it. 13:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the consensus of most observers of this article believe that Pelosi and the others should be in the article, with the appropriate descriptive note. Call her speaker-designate, speaker-presumptive, or as Safire said this weekend, Speaker-To-be, but to not list her is denying information to the readers of the article. Simon12 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted this again, seeing as how we have about 3 topics on this discussion page. The fact is no one has been elected yet and Wikipedia has a very clear policy on this "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball". Should we start another discussion topic and start voting? Or should we jsut wait out the month? I say the latter. I won't be reverting again for fear of 3R. StayinAnon 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• By your logic, then, this whole article ought to be deleted. If so, then nominate it at WP:AFD.—Markles 18:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because the 110th Congress is an offical formation that Constitutionally will take place. The Consitution does not, however, say that the Majority Leader is of the Majority Party. StayinAnon 19:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets take a close look at Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. It first says:

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."

Since the future election of Pelosi is clearly verifiable from multiple sources, the policy says it's OK. The policy also says:

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."

Since the election of Pelosi to be Speaker is "almost certain to take place", and, of course, notable. once again, the policy supports including the information. I am going to rv back. Simon12 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but think of this- Would you write in the election page for a Senate race where one candidate is polling in the 60's whereas his opposition is in the 30's would you put Senator-elect on his page, or wait until the electio has taken place? StayinAnon 19:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A poll is not the same thing as being chosen as candidate for speaker by a caucus which we know has a majority in the new house. This is not a "poll" - this is "the votes have already been counted, and pending some completely unforeseen development, she will win." john k 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We should call Pelosi the "presumptive speaker" like the press does. john k 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To further add to this, in a poll, you have two choices - while each House member ostensibly does as well in the race for Speaker, if he does not vote for the party's choice, chances are, he will be effectively tossed out of his party's caucus, a la James Traficant's vote for Hastert. It's silly to keep the Speaker's race blank here. Call her what you want - presumptive, almost certain, to-be, designate, apparent - if that makes you happy, but it's just ridiculous for it to be blank. Same on the President Pro Tempore - according to wikipedia's own page on it, it has been 60 years since the formula has been deviated from - the senior member of the majority party. Could this change? Sure, but again, there's no reason it would, and no senator worth his salt would possibly throw out his caucus membership over a ceremonial position. It's just silly to be the last place on earth to mention who the leaders will be. It's verifiable, it's editable, and it's solid. --Souperman 20:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's present it this way- as fact. Right now, everything for the 110th Congress is speculative. We can verify by who has been selected. Well, the Speaker has not been selected nor the Senate Pro Tempore. These are elections that haven't been decided yet. Why must we speculate on what I agree is 99.9% sure we're assigning titles to people who do not yet have them. It's why we add -elect to the end of entering office before taking the oath. In this case, they haven't even been elected yet. It is far more reasonable to wait until January 4. Honestly, its just one month, I'm sure we can be patient. StayinAnon 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See Tim Johnson of South Dakota. This is why I'm against listing Leaders in both chambers, before the new Congress is sworn in January 2007. GoodDay 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Two words why we have this tag: Tim Johnson

I still support listing Harry Reid as the majority leader for the time being however. 74.192.210.39 06:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright; as long as Senator Johnson doesn't resign OR die (in office) & the SD Governor appoints a Republican to complete the Senate term (term expires, 3 January 2009), the Democrats will assume majority status in January 2007. GoodDay 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

House Employees

The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call is reporting that Speaker-designate Pelosi has asked the current Sergeant-at-Arms and Chaplain to stay on in those positions in the 110th Congress. The current Clerk and Chief Adminsistrative Officer are being asked to stay at least until February 2007. This is not confirmed outside of Roll Call, which cites an unnamed source. Not sufficiently "confirmed" in my view to include the info on the main page, but I include it here for reference.

• Sergeant-at-Arms: Bill Livingood
• Chaplain: Rev. Daniel Coughlin
• Clerk: Karen Haas
• Chief Administrative Officer: Jay Eagan

Dcmacnut 20:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Runoff Elections

The opening paragraph states that all 435 members of the house were elected on Nov 7, which is not quite correct. Elections were held for all 435 seats, however I know at least two seats will be decided in yet-to-be-held run-offs (Louisiana 2nd & Texas 22nd). The introduction should probably be changed to say something like "Elections were held for all 435 seats of the House of Representitives, however two races (LA-2nd and TX-22) resulted in subsequent run-off elections." It should probably be checked to make sure those are the only run-offs. Tmaher 05:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The TX seat is actually TX-23. 22 is Delay's old seat, which was won by Nick Lampson. TX-23 is the race between Henry Bonilla and Ciro Rordriguez. News organizations are beginning to call the race for Rodriguez, which would would put the TX delegation at 19-13. David 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question has now been rewritten and is now correct. Simon12 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 110th congress

Please merge any relevant content from Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 110th congress per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 109th congress. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:16Z

I merged it, expanding the size of this article from 53 to 61 KB, which seems counterproductive. Perhaps in the future I will suggest breaking out this section again ;-p. NoSeptember 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)