And speaking of blasts from the past

Nancy Pelosi, before she drank too deep of the Kook-Aid:

It’s a reminder, of course, that the Democrats don’t have any fixed principles that they routinely apply to all situations.  Their sole, naked goal, is total victory and control.

Hat tip: Sadie

Great moments in Leftist oratory

George Orwell, 1984:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Nancy Pelosi, on the unreasonableness of the democratic legislature process:

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.

Barack Obama, on the occasion of his 2nd inauguration:

Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.

Mommy! I’m scared!

Hubris leads to stupidity, which leads to public explosure. So thanks, Nancy Pelosi!

A friend wrote to me quite appropriately outraged about the fact that Nancy Pelosi is saying that, if there was a security failure in Benghazi, blame belongs to the Republicans:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on CNN Tuesday attempted to shift the blame for the disastrous handling of the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya from the Obama administration onto Republican lawmakers, arguing they withheld $300 million in funding that could have provided much-needed security at the consulate.

Appearing on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show, Pelosi also said calls coming from the GOP to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi are likely politically motivated.

“So, are you saying this is political from their perspective,” Blitzer asked the congresswoman.

“One might suspect that,” she replied.

Read the rest here.

So, if I understand Pelosi’s reasoning, the State Department, which is responsible for embassy security and which is entirely under Democrat control, said no to multiple requests for increased security in Benghazi because Republicans wouldn’t hand over $300 million?  Yeah, right.  This from an administration that, without even blinking, spent several trillion dollars we don’t even have on green boondoggles, socialized car manufacturing, and other exciting Democrat initiatives?

Even someone without a sense of smell can recognize that this doesn’t pass the smell test.  As my friend says, the reason there was no security in Benghazi is that the administration wanted “no boots on the ground.” They didn’t want it to appear that U.S. forces were “invading” another country.  A shallow administration had a shallow reason for putting American lives at risk.

On the one hand, what Pelosi says is absolutely maddening. After all, given her access to the legacy media, she has a bully pulpit to spin these fantastical tales to the American people. On the other hand, though, that bully pulpit leads to hubris, which leads to stupidity — and, eventually, stupidity is hard to hide.

What I’m about to say appears like a digression, but it’s not:  Another friend told me that he heard two gals in a suburban coffee shop, both obviously stereotypical liberal soccer mom types. Except that one said to the other something along the lines of “I don’t know. It seems like the news never reports anything critical about Obama. All they say is good stuff about him and bad stuff about Romney.”

I mention this because even the most biased and disinterested Americans might be figuring out that people like Nancy Pelosi are full to the brim with hubris and fecal matter. (Setting a good example for my kids, I don’t swear.)

Of course, that coffee shop gal might have been like me — a stealth agent politely trying to open liberals’ eyes to the fact that they live in a bubble, and an increasingly dangerous one at that. Part of my stealth tactic comes about because I’m not a big fan of direct confrontation. Part of it, though, comes about because I believe that, when a person’s ideology is being challenged, it’s much more effective to infiltrate from behind than to engage in a full frontal attack. Using the dumb blonde strategy is an effective way to get people to think without making them feel threatened.

Anyway, I’m almost pleased when Nancy Pelosi says such insanely, intuitively stupid things because it gives me great openings to suggest to my blindly liberal friends that their leaders have mouse-sized brains and rat-sized personalities.

Re that Veep spot on the Democrat ticket — I have a guess about the dark horse replacement

I’m with American Crossroads, which believes that Joe Biden is just what the Democrat ticket needs:

Gravitas! (Giggle, giggle.)

I’m suspect, though, that the Democrats themselves are becoming disenchanted with Good Old Joe. Apparently they cast around for the Hillary alternative, only to get a resounding “No!” from a woman who neither wanted to be on a winning nor a losing Democrat ticket, because she thought both would be bad for her career.  You can always trust the Clintons to keep their eyes on the main chance.

So who’s next?  I’m voting for a “Draft Elizabeth Warren” movement.

Think about it for a moment:  while the Republican party has more young guns than it can count, who does the Democrat party have?  Jesse Jackson, Jr.?  No.  Poor guy has a bipolar disorder.  I wish him well, but no one wishes him on the ticket.  Rahm Emanuel?  Nope.  You don’t go from Chief of Staff, to Mayor of a corrupt, crime-ridden city, to second on the presidential ticket.  Raddled old Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi?  Big NO there. Debbie What’s-her-name Schlemeil?  I think Baghdad Debbie has had her dishonest day.

Anyone?  Anyone?

I didn’t think so.

The only “young” gun they’ve got is Elizabeth Warren.  She’s struggling to stay above water in Massachusetts, but Democrats might see her as someone who can revive the base if she’s on the presidential ticket.  After all, when it comes to “You didn’t build that,” she and Obama are two minds with but a single thought.  Better an exciting candidate on the presidential ticket than a struggling candidate for a senate seat that’s already filled by a fairly popular, attractive RINO.

My best guess today is that, in a week or so, poor old Joe is going to get very sick and need to retire abruptly.  And stalwart Progressive Elizabeth Warren will valiantly step up to fill Joe’s shoes.

What do you think?

The streets of San Francisco (or, this is Nancy Pelosi’s city)

Writing a couple of years ago about the streets of San Francisco, in a post I called “Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco,” I had this to say:

Last week, I had occasion to make four separate trips to the City.  Each was unpleasant.

The first trip, I got a flat tire from broken glass in the street.  I know that can happen anywhere, but it’s more likely along the Market Street stretch I had to travel.

The second trip, I found myself at a corner that boasted both a stop sign and a red light.  This was ludicrous, confusing and, therefore, dangerous.  This is manic control run amok.

The third trip, I almost got a ticket when I parked at what appeared to be a non-metered space.  Half the block had parking meters; half the block, the part where I was parking, didn’t.  It was only because a nice pedestrian warned me that I learned that there was an electronic kiosk about 25 feet away from my car that sold parking passes for the car’s dashboard.  Other than that word of mouth tip, there were no signs at all warning that, while half the block had old-fashioned meters, the other half had switched to a computer system.

The fourth trip, my husband and I were walking down Gough Street towards the Opera House at dusk.  Between the failing light and the broken and dimmed street lights, it was impossible to avoid the hazards of pitted, jagged, broken uneven sidewalk.  It was only because we’re in good shape, with decent balance, that the two of us avoided a painful tumble.  I won’t even describe the smell of urine and sewage that kept wafting up towards us as we walked along.

Welcome to Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco.

Well, San Francisco has made this disgrace official, by naming a street after Nancy Pelosi.

Proving, as he so often does, that a picture is worth a thousand words, Michael Ramirez has nailed this most recent San Francisco development.

Newt and Obama Care (and one other Newt thing)

Newt made a very good point about his earlier support for an individual mandate when it came to health care:  The Heritage Foundation, as reputable a conservative think tank as one can find, actually thought the idea was a good one.  Then, as Newt did, it backed off when it realized the ramifications:

Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma: “Mr. Speaker, you speak passionately about first principles and small government — smaller government, yet you supported individual mandates for health insurance….Why should limited government conservatives like me trust that a President Gingrich will not advance these sorts of big government approaches when you are president?”

Newt Gingrich: “Well…the original individual mandate originally was developed by [the] Heritage Foundation and others as a method to block Hillarycare in 1993, and virtually all of us who were conservatives came to the conclusion that, in fact, it was more dangerous and more difficult to implement, and guaranteed that politics and politicians would define health care. And that’s why virtually every conservative has, in fact, left that kind of a model.”

Speaking of Newt, was I the only one who was delighted with his response when Nancy Pelosi threatened to reveal secrets?  Rather than cowering, he said (a) bring it on and (b) I’m going to ream you for violating ethics rules.  And then she backed down.  This is why conservatives like Newt.  He’s not afraid of the establishment.  He may be a fruitcake, but he’s our warrior fruitcake!

Nancy Pelosi — tough and confused about principles

David Axelrod’s talk yesterday included a shout-out to the lovable Nancy Pelosi, whom he feels is unfairly maligned by the Rushes of this world.  Per David, Nancy is not an effete San Francisco liberal.  Instead, she’s a tough political operative — for all the right, i.e., Progressive, reasons, of course — who was trained in her Dad’s old-fashioned, rough-and-tumble ward rooms.  He described with affection Nancy ramming her finger repeatedly in his chest when she felt he’d failed to deliver on something or other.

What a charmer.

I can readily believe Axelrod’s talk about Nancy’s toughness and finger strikes.  The “principled” part, though, is a little harder.  Isn’t this the woman who recently castigated Catholics for having “this conscience thing“?  Hmmm….  Conscience?  Principles?  They kind of seem like a matched set to me.

Just the other day, Pelosi again stumbled on her principles when she complained that Bishops who object to forcing Catholics to subsidize things that they think are morally evil (abortions, for example) are “lobbyists.”  The Anchoress has more on this one.  When I think of Nancy Pelosi and principles, I keep getting a mental image of Jon Lovitz doing his compulsive liar shtick.  “Yeah, principles.  That’s the ticket!”

Nancy’s sounding desperate

Nancy Pelosi may be mad at Robert Gibbs for admitting that the upcoming elections aren’t going to result in Democratic gains, but the fact is that she sounds pretty desperate herself in this email I got begging for funds:

Midnight tonight is your last chance to contribute to the DCCC before one of the most critical FEC deadlines of this election and the first since Republicans have experienced a surge in their fundraising.

It’s critical that House Democrats have a strong showing this month. The media and Washington pundits will view our fundraising totals as an indication of our strength to take on Republicans and their powerful special interest supporters in November.

Republicans have been claiming to have the momentum. We know that’s not true, and if you stand with me at this decisive moment in our campaign, we will make this clear to the world. We are just $35,919 away from our goal and are so committed to making this goal that all gifts today will be matched 2-to-1 by a group of generous Democratic donors.

[snip]

This election comes down to a choice between going forward or going back to Republican rule and the same exact failed policies of the Bush agenda.

My question for you: Does she really think that, 18 months into Obama’s presidency, and 6 years into a Democratic controlled Congress, “blame Bush” is still a workable tactic?

Democrats become visibly anti-democratic

As part of a longer post about the Democrats’ anti-democratic tendencies, Peter Wehner has this to say:

If you wanted a sound bite that embodied much of what is wrong with contemporary liberalism, you could do worse than listen to the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on health care:

We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we’re going to get health-care reform passed for the America people.

Set aside the fact that Ms. Pelosi sounds like Tareq and Michaele Salahi trying to crash a White House State dinner. She seems to view herself as part of the guardian class, as one of our philosopher kings who knows better than the great, unwashed masses what is good for them. It is of a piece with the collectivist mindset, one that believes that it is with the ruling class that wisdom resides. They know best – and they will give you not what you may want but what they believe you need.

This view is exceedingly arrogant and, if it is indulged in often enough, it becomes, in some sense, anti-democratic.

There is a long history in America to dictate the proper role of its legislators. Some argue they ought to mirror public opinion all the time; others argue that we elect people to political posts based on our confidence in their judgment. They therefore have a relatively free hand to pursue the agenda they deem appropriate. But even those who subscribe to the views of the second group understand that in the end, ours is a representative form of government. The will of the people matters. We are, after all, a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

I concur heartily and urge you to read Wehner’s entire post.

Standing up for the rights of American people not to get tricked and bullied by Congress

That Nancy Pelosi is a pistol.  Here she is, a terrible public speaker, but still arguing strongly that it’s absolutely unconscionable for Congress to sneak bills through committee, to vote on things they haven’t read and don’t know, to vote on bills that the American public hasn’t had to read, to have bills in the thousands of pages that are unintelligible, to vote on things the voters strongly oppose, and to allow the government to have access to people’s tax information for matters unrelated to taxes.  These are some amazing, even if somewhat muddled speeches.  I felt like standing up and cheering whenever, periodically, I was able to understand her.

The only problem was that these speeches were given in 2005.  Apparently these heart-felt principles just don’t matter when you’re the party in power, and you have the opportunity to take over almost 20% of the American economy and forever after deprive American citizens of their freedom from government control:

Hat tip:  Stop the ACLU and Andrea Shea King