By Kent Moreno:
I believe in bipartisanship. I suspect that most members of the Republican and Democratic Party believe in bipartisanship. Talk is cheap.
The question is whether one’s actions match their words. After 9/11 Democrats worked with Republicans and helped to pass many of President Bush’s proposals even those that were contrary to our political and economic philosophies. We did this because there was a crisis and we needed to put our country first and work together rather than play political power games. In 2008, our country experienced its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In this time of crisis for our country, when Americans needed to see both parties working together, did the Republican Party put the country first and embrace bipartisanship? Sadly, they put the needs of
their political party before the needs of our country. Regarding Speaker Pelosi, I like her well enough and appreciate some of her accomplishments but I would not classify myself as a fan.
Personally, I don’t think we’ve had a really outstanding Speaker of the House since Tip O’Neill.
I do have to admit to being a bit surprised just how unpopular Nancy Pelosi is with some conservatives. Having read numerous commentaries as well as having listened to a few anti-Nancy Pelosi rants from individuals on TV and folks on the street, I’ve noticed two things. First, the complaints regarding Speaker Pelosi have less to do with her political views and more to do with her personality. Second, every criticism of Speaker Pelosi I’ve heard or read has come from a man. Speaker Pelosi is an outspoken individual. She’s intelligent and she’s
competent. Quite frankly, as sad as it sounds in 2009, there are still men who are threatened by a woman in a position of power. I think this more than anything has a lot to do with the strong dislike held by some or the Speaker of the House.
This whole situation reminded me of something I ran across years ago of how men and women are perceived differently:
He’s assertive-she’s aggressive.
He’s strategizes- she’s manipulates.
He shows leadership- she’s controlling
He’s committed- she’s obsessed.
He’s persevering-she’s relentless. He sticks to his guns- she’s stubborn
A man is commanding- a woman is demanding.
A man is forceful- a woman is pushy.
A man is uncompromising- a woman is a ball breaker.
A man is a perfectionist-a woman is a pain in the ass
If a man wants to get it right, he’s looked up to and respected.
If a woman wants to get it right, she’s difficult and impossible.
One criticism leveled at Speaker Pelosi that has nothing to do with her personality or gender pertains to whether she was briefed by the by the CIA regarding the use of enhanced interrogation techniques a.k.a torture. It is Speaker Pelosi’s claim that the CIA never informed her of the use enhanced interrogation techniques. Given just how emotionally charged the issue of enhanced interrogation is, were it not for corroborating evidence, it would be plausible that Speaker Pelosi was covering her political derrière by claiming she was never informed of these practices.
However, Speaker Pelosi is not alone. Former Senator Bob Graham who was the chair of the Senate Intelligence committee was also not informed of the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and he keeps meticulous notes as to the daily occurrences in his life. When the story broke regarding Speaker Pelosi, former Senator Graham contacted the CIA to seek clarification as to why he too had not been informed of the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. The CIA informed him that he had been briefed four times on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Former Senator Graham checked his spiral bound notebooks and found that no briefings by the CIA had occurred on three of the four days claimed. When he informed the CIA of this, they concurred that he was correct. At the one briefing that did occur, in attendance were two people who did not have the required security clearance to have received a briefing on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. With regard to this issue, the facts favor Speaker Pelosi.
The question has been asked whether a change as to who is the Speaker of the House might encourage bipartisanship. If an economic crisis in our country is not enough to encourage bipartisanship on the part of Congressional Republicans then I have a hard time imagining how a change in the Speaker of the House could positively affect bipartisanship on the part of Congressional Republicans. Spoils go to the victor. I endured far too many years with Newt Gingrich whose blatantly dishonest and dishonorable behavior (both politically and personally) was completely repugnant to me. I guess now it’s the other guy’s turn.
By Stephen Smoot:
In the election of 1948 President Harry Truman faced an uphill climb for re-election. No, strike that. He faced an up-Everest climb. Truman faced factional revolts from quasi-Communists and Deep South segregationists in his own party. The GOP nominated Thomas E. Dewey. Truman’s Republican opponent dominated the polls and rightly enjoyed tremendous respect from the electorate. To erode Dewey’s support, the incumbent president refrained from attacking or even mentioning him by name. Instead he (rather disingenuously since it approved sweeping Cold
War era changes requested by him) attacked the Republican controlled Congress, calling it a “do nothing” institution. This successful deflection of attention from the popular Dewey to a perennially unpopular and faceless institution helped push Truman’s effort to success that November. Republicans running for the House of Representatives could do worse than to study this election and apply its lessons.
The lesson is as follows. If your Democratic opponent has no obvious weaknesses, run against Nancy Pelosi. She may play well in the Presidio, but not in Peoria. Some Republicans tried this in 2008, but in a last minute, sputtering, kind of effort. Pelosi has always galvanized conservatives in the same way that Newt Gingrich sent 1990s liberals into apoplectic fits. However her record as Speaker of the House has been troubled. The national economy has tanked since she assumed the leadership post. Republicans have thus far blamed President Bush for a bailout mentality in fall of 2008 without asking whether or not a Congress led by
the likes of Pelosi would have allowed a more free market solution. Some of the proposals considered by her leadership appear bizarre, if not downright sinister. These include discussions over requiring GPS trackers in every automobile. She also made a creepy remark while speaking in China about governments taking inventory of every aspect of everyone’s
lives to combat “climate change” (notice that cooler temperatures have made “global warming” passe.)
Pelosi is trying to Bolshevize the Democratic side of the House of Representatives, in other words weed out members of her own party that tend to disagree with the left wing San Francisco ideology. She focused her wrath last spring at Representative Heath Shuler, Democrat from North Carolina. Shuler, former quarterback from the University of Tennessee and the Washington Redskins, advocated for bipartisan solutions for the economy. "We have to have everyone — Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration — saying, 'We got something done that was efficient, stimulative and timely.'" What got him in trouble was the statement, "I truly feel that's where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed." Pelosi threatened to find a primary opponent to oust Shuler in the next election. Democrats tried the same tactic against Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. He ended up winning re-election as an independent. Attacking independent minded Democrats will only drive a wedge into her own party and strengthen Republican charges of
tyrannical rule. Then on April 23rd, Pelosi contradicted the recollection of congressional colleagues, the CIA, and others in the federal government by denying that she knew about “enhanced interrogation” techniques. All the above sources claimed that intelligence officials briefed her and others on waterboarding and other measures, but she flatly denied it, adding that “they (the CIA) mislead us all the time.” Former CIA Director Porter Goss commented on Pelosi’s behavior, stating that he always intended to remain silent on national politics, but that the Speaker of the House “has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage.” The accusations against Pelosi
started when she launched a tirade against the use of waterboarding and other techniques. First the press revealed that one such interrogation prevented a major terror attack on a US city, then current CIA Director Leon Panetta revealed in a memo that Pelosi raised no objections when briefed several years ago.
On the other hand, removing Pelosi has its dangers as well. Much of the money and mobilization that put the Democrats in control of Congress and the White House came from their left wing political base. A shift towards the center could alienate a fairly prickly constituency. No one in Congress with any stature exists to the left of Pelosi, any change brings that body’s leadership towards the center. This puts Democrats into a conundrum. Should they alienate the radical left wing base that works the hardest for the party at this point, or drive away centrist voters at a time when the Republican Party has a lot of material to mobilize its own base and raise concerns among moderates? Likely they will stick with Pelosi and risk substantial Republican gains in 2010, then run back to the center before the next presidential election.
Jettisoning Pelosi at this point will give the Republicans a substantial psychological victory. At the end of the day votes win elections. Pelosi’s radicalism harms her party and gives the GOP a major target of opportunity. If they show her the door now, they have a long time to repair the damage and confuse GOP plans for 2010. Political wisdom says they should dump Pelosi now. Thankfully, she will remain as a shrill, but creepy, star in the rogue’s gallery of characters that make up the Democratic leadership.
