« Quotational Therapy: Part 26 -- Churchill On Perserverence. | WILLisms.com | Canada's Socialized Health Care. »

Nancy Pelosi: Hyper-Hypocritical.

On the issue of crucial Social Security reform, time and time again, Pelosi demonstrates her true colors:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told Roll Call last week that the Democrat effort to stymie President Bush on Social Security was one of their greatest accomplishments so far this year. Mrs. Pelosi, expressing what is now predictable vitriolic Democratic rhetoric said: "It was important for us to take him down, destroy [Bush's] brand."

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi has been paying a little too much attention to the "'New Ideas' Over-rated as Key to Election Wins" meme bouncing around the left.

Ponder that: NEW IDEAS ARE OVERRATED. What kind of liberals are these?

That's a rhetorical question, but the answer is that they are reactionary left-wingers, evangelically adhering to-- and longing for-- 1930s and 1960s dogma.

June 17, on reform:

"It's not dead yet. We have to stay focused on taking that down."

Watch Nancy Pelosi's shifting comments on Social Security, first from Fox News Sunday back in March:

WALLACE: My question is, the Democrats — it's their plan, Social Security — what is your idea of how to solve the long-term solvency issue?

PELOSI: First, may I just say of that, that is what the taxpayers' dollar, a political ad on the Internet of the House Republican leadership. But that's another issue.

WALLACE: What's your plan?

(CROSSTALK)

PELOSI: The facts, I said, are these.

What?

WALLACE: What's your plan to solve the long-term solvency?

PELOSI: The plan for solvency is to stop robbing Social Security of its money for other purposes.

Okay, so Pelosi wanted to stop the raid on the surplus that Social Security will run for the next dozen years.

Compare that with her comments just a couple of weeks ago:

There's nothing wrong with Social Security lending money with the prospect of returning it - There is a surplus in Social Security, and under the law Social Security can lend that money to the government for other purposes.

This exchange really just speaks for itself:

Q Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.

Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Ms. Pelosi. As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision.

Q Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.

Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.

Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

It is almost as if God has spoken? Yikes.

It's obvious Pelosi supports the Kelo decision, because it essentially undermines private property rights in America. Socialists do not believe in private property rights.

There are probably two other dimensions, as well, to Pelosi's theological support for Kelo.

1. The Schiavo situation.

The Democratic leadership has a talking point they feel is a winner, politically (and it is, among their base). The talking point is that Republicans are power-crazy, that Republicans do not respect the rule of law, that Republicans are too aggressively hostile toward the courts, that when Republicans disagree with a judicial decision, they will automatically do something brash, and so on.

So, when the Minority Leader was informed of GOP-initiated legislation designed to protect Americans from the application of Kelo at the federal level, the "Schiavo talking points" flooded forward to her accessible consciousness.

For Nancy Pelosi, the default answer to anything is to oppose anything and everything Republicans do.

2. The environment.

For liberals, powerful private property protections are inimical to environmental protection. The decision in Kelo v. New London essentially allowed a powerful private entity to confiscate the property of an individual against her will and without any public application, with the full blessing of a governmental entity.

One would think liberals would hate Kelo for that reason. Indeed, Kelo means that big corporations can essentially take any property they want, from anyone they want, as long as they get a few city council members to sign on to it. Thinking hypothetically, this could obviously have negative consequences for the environment.

But, because weak private property rights have traditionally been supported by the environmental movement, Pelosi likely erroneously associated Kelo with the protection of wetlands or endangered species.

Victor Davis Hanson believes the Democrats, especially elitists such as Nancy Pelosi, have taken all the wrong lessons from recent elections:

...instead of the hard, necessary work of winning the public over to a systematic alternative vision, the Democratic leadership seems to be hoping that a quickie scandal, a noisy filibuster or a slip overseas will tip a few million voters and thus return the Democrats to power....

Can't the Democrats find representatives other than a calcified Kerry, Sen. Joe Biden, Kennedy or Al Gore -- who all crashed in past general presidential elections or primaries and now drip bitterness? How do you politely tell your leadership that it, not just George W. Bush, is the problem?

Even those well-known Democratic luminaries who haven't failed at running for the presidency -- like California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco -- hardly represent a diverse electorate, unless residence within 100 miles of San Francisco reflects Middle America....

Apparently, the liberal opposition thinks sarcasm and negativism can reverse the larger political tide of the last three decades. Good luck.

Democrats regaining the position of dominance in American politics they held for much of the 20th century is just not going to happen with Nancy Pelosi at the helm in the House of Representatives.

Debra J. Saunders asserts that Nancy Pelosi's pattern of rhetoric and behavior is one of "Ethics -- Only good for the other side."

...a funny thing happened on Pelosi's way to her ethics coup: She ran afoul of the same rules she hurls at DeLay.

As the Washington Post reported, last week Pelosi filed delinquent reports for three trips she herself accepted from outside sponsors. The biggie was a week-long 1999 trip to Taiwan, paid for by the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce. The tab for Pelosi and her husband: about $8,000.

Just last month, Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider told Roll Call that Pelosi's "position is that the rules are clear; people need to follow them." Within days, Pelosi had to refile because she failed to follow these "clear" rules.

Here's another glitch: A senior aide to Pelosi, Eddie Charmaine Manansala, went on a $9,887 trip in 2004 sponsored by the same Korea-U.S. Exchange Council as sponsored DeLay's excursion -- then failed to file the mandated paperwork until a reporter asked about the trip.

And while Pelosi bashes GOP ethics, PoliticalMoneyLine, a data firm, crunched the numbers and found that in the last five years, Democrats took 3, 458 privately funded junkets, while Republicans took 2,666.

Indeed, Nancy Pelosi's hyper-hypocrisy is so hilarious it's almost too much to bear:

As Ed Patru of the National Republican Congressional Committee noted, Pelosi has made "ethics the centerpiece of the Democratic party's message," yet she is "the only minority leader who has been hit with fines for fund- raising violations."

Daly wasn't sure if Pelosi was the only minority leader to be fined. That's nice.

That is nice.

And that's our Nancy!

Posted by Will Franklin · 8 July 2005 11:25 AM

Comments

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at July 8, 2005 12:39 PM

Posted by: Am I A Pundit Now? at July 8, 2005 03:50 PM

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at July 8, 2005 07:08 PM

Posted by: Cindy T. at July 8, 2005 07:12 PM

Posted by: Robin at July 10, 2005 09:55 AM