Gay Patriot Header Image

Nancy Pelosi & the Democrats’ Politics of Obstruction

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:22 pm - October 26, 2006.
Filed under: 2006 Elections,Bush-hatred,National Politics

On the first anniversary of President Bush’s second inauguration — and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Gipper’s first — I called the Democrats, “the Party of Obstruction, noting how the Democratic leadership of both the House and the Senate was eschewing constructive efforts to work with the Republican majority and uniting their caucuses to oppose the president’s initiatives. They weren’t interested in effecting any compromises with him, just blocking any proposal he put forward, merely because he had put it forward.

In a recent interview with 60 Minutes, potential Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi made clear that should her party win control of Congress next month, she will continue this practice of obstruction. Claiming that the election is about the President and Vice President, she would be satisfied to make “them lame ducks.”

So, although the President was elected to a four-year term — and given that Pelosi claims she has taken “off the table,” she believes a Democratic majority should render him ineffective. In other words, she remains more committed to preventing the nation’s Chief Executive from accomplishing anything than in working with him to promote the national interest. No wonder she threatens “to deny plum assignments to members who vote with the Republicans.

Contrast this with House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the last Republican Speaker to serve under a Democratic President. In his two terms as Speaker (1995-99), while often at odds with Bill Clinton, that Democratic President, he and House Republicans worked with the Chief Executive to forge a consensus domestic policy, passing landmark welfare reform and balancing the federal budget.

While often derided as a vindictive partisan, Gingrich was able to overcome whatever partisan animosity he had to serve the national interest. Pelosi, however, has not indicated she has no intention of overcoming hers. She said she “was being gentle” when she “called her Republican colleagues ‘immoral’ and ‘corrupt,’ and . . . said they [were] running a criminal enterprise.

If, in the last few days of the campaign, the GOP makes clear Pelosi’s record of obstruction, they should have no trouble building on their momentum of the past few days and holding onto the House. No wonder Mrs. Pelosi has been virtually absent from the campaign trail — in stark contrast to Newt Gingrich in 1994, the last leader of the House minority to lead his party to majority status in mid-term elections.

Share

30 Comments

  1. Well, duh — saying no is the only thing Nancy Pelosi knows how to do.

    Every time I see her, I think of the line from Monty Python: “Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 26, 2006 @ 7:39 pm - October 26, 2006

  2. “So, although the President was elected to a four-year term — and given that Pelosi claims she has taken “off the table,” she believes a Democratic majority should render him ineffective.”

    And so do the voters.

    Comment by sean — October 26, 2006 @ 8:38 pm - October 26, 2006

  3. If, in the last few days of the campaign, the GOP makes clear Pelosi’s record of obstruction, they should have no trouble building on their momentum of the past few days and holding onto the House. No wonder Mrs. Pelosi has been virtually absent from the campaign trail — in stark contrast to Newt Gingrich in 1994, the last leader of the House minority to lead his party to majority status in mid-term elections.

    I seem to recall that it was the GOP who shut down the government at one time in a pissing contest with Clinton. That doesn’t meet your definition of “obstructionist”?

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — October 26, 2006 @ 8:47 pm - October 26, 2006

  4. So, although the President was elected to a four-year term — and given that Pelosi claims she has taken “off the table,” she believes a Democratic majority should render him ineffective. In other words, she remains more committed to preventing the nation’s Chief Executive from accomplishing anything than in working with him to promote the national interest.

    Well, the Constitution makes it clear that the chief executive is not meant to accomplish anything without the full consent of Congress. In fact, the structure and language of the Constitution shows that he was intened to be the person who executes laws adopted by Congress (with his consent), not the person who determines which laws to make.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 26, 2006 @ 9:08 pm - October 26, 2006

  5. Furthermore, I think there are far, far too many laws already. So, given that Congresses usually pass laws rather than repealing them, I’d rather have a Congress set to pass laws that the president won’t sign — divided government. When Congress and the President are the same party, whatever that party may be, it always seems to be a recipe for the rapid expansion of government power.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 26, 2006 @ 9:13 pm - October 26, 2006

  6. I seem to recall that it was the GOP who shut down the government at one time in a pissing contest with Clinton.

    Actually, Clinton and his buddies in the federal employees union decided to ‘shut down the government,’ through their own intransigience. Although the “shutdown” didn’t seem to affect anybody but some concessioners at National Parks. The country seemed to get by without the bureaucracy, and no welfare recipient missed a single check.

    I don’t believe for a second Pelosi and her minions aren’t going to pursue impeachment. And Charlie Rangel has vowed to raise taxes. So, two years of impeachment, obstruction, and tax increases await. And if they have any spare time, they’ll work to achieve American defeat in Iraq and pass an Amnesty Bill for illegal aliens. 2006 looks awful, but I wonder how the Democrat record will play in 2008.

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 9:28 pm - October 26, 2006

  7. Democratic Senate Staffer – Blogger behind StopSexPredators

    From Radar
    “Blogger behind StopSexPredators—the bogus blog that first posted the Mark Foley e-mails and got the ball rolling on PageGate—is a former Democratic Senate staffer named Lane Hudson”.

    http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/foleys-phony-blogger-identified.php

    Comment by Brit — October 26, 2006 @ 9:51 pm - October 26, 2006

  8. I cringe at a Pelosi in power but the Reps do need to do more in justifying their policies and perhaps now they will be forced to do so. I think they would still do better in the future just with the scare of a Dem takeover in one of the houses and that is still what I would prefer at this time but you play the hand your dealt.

    Comment by VinceTN — October 26, 2006 @ 10:19 pm - October 26, 2006

  9. #8: Wouldn’t you feel a lot better if someone in the GOP leadership came out and said, “We know we’ve screwed up. Here’s our plan to fix it.” And then spelled out some lobbying and earmark reform and spending changes? Wouldn’t that make you hold your nose a little less tightly at the polling place?

    Comment by V the K — October 26, 2006 @ 10:24 pm - October 26, 2006

  10. Lets face it: Having Pelosi & Reid run the House of Representatives is like asking John Mark Karr to baby-sit your kids – you just know the damage is going to be irreparable.

    Not that the Republicans deserve reelection – that’s like saying Katie Couric deserved to anchor the nightly news –only because she’s slightly less annoying than Dan Rather.

    The Republicans may be inept, corrupt, and stupid – but they do have one thing going for them that the dems don’t: namely the WOT and where it’s going – and coming.

    Should the Dems take the house and / or the senate – as some pundits predict – you can bet the WOT will come with more ‘nuance’ than a John Kerry Senate vote. The left will be against the terrorists because they’re a ‘nuisance’ and ‘law enforcement issue’ – not because Western Civilization is threatened or because Islam views our democracy itself as a threat. The left will argue the standard religious equivalence and morally bankrupt platitudes of cultural differences – never once attempting to defend their own religious heritage or cultural history. After all, who are we to pass judgment or feel superior to a religion that advocates the stoning deaths of gays and women as punishment for religious transgressions? No five Hail Mary’s and an Act of Contrition from the religion of peace: They don’t believe in excommunication – they go straight to execution. When women’s groups and Gay Rights groups find republicans a bigger threat than Islamist – you know the wheels have come off the left’s tricycle.

    Eventually, when the ‘International Summit on Religious Tolerance’ is held in some Islamic ghetto, no doubt – all the better to show the infidels the ever inflamed Arab street in full seethe mode – will Madam Speaker Pelosi or Senator Clinton don head scarves and veils – so as not to offend the sensitive sensibilities of the local Imam? When in Mecca, do as the locals do, right? Funny, the Muslims don’t feel that way when they move to Holland, Paris or London. No fear of offending the locals there.

    No doubt Syria and Iran will narrate the Power-point presentation on Religious Tolerance and the appropriate punishment for those who offend the almighty Mo. In their defense: it’s not really religious equivalence when you think your religion should rule the world and non believers should be punished and treated as second class citizens – that actually would fall under religious supremacy and possibly religious genocide for the non believers around the globe. But who are we to criticize: we have football wives every autumn and gays still can’t get married in New Jersey.

    But the dems won’t dare mention Islam and Terror in the same breath – hell, GWB goes into verbal gymnastics to avoid the connection himself. But here’s the difference: GWB doesn’t buy into the bankrupt philosophy of religious/moral/cultural equivalence. He has no problem espousing America as a bastion of liberty, free speech and religious tolerance. He may not agree with you on stem cells, gay marriage, taxes or the WOT – but he’s not about to silence you for saying so (see: MSM, MoveOn, Hollywood, Blue States and former Presidents and presidential candidates for numerous examples).

    With the left; anyone out of step with their agenda or positions, is culled from the herd or labeled as a ‘hateful racist misogynist homophobe’ (see: the Connecticut Senate Race, Columbia University, Academia at Large, the minute men, Rush, Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, Black Republicans, Gay Republicans, Pro Israeli Jews, Christians and former Vice Presidential candidates).

    Anyone think John Kerry isn’t more impressed with how the French run things than how the republicans do? Would Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean rather discuss foreign policy with the UN or the republicans? Who better shares the worldview of the left: the editorial board of ‘The Guardian’ or the Republicans? Think Pelosi reads Daily Kos or Jihad Watch? What’s a bigger threat to the US: Global warming or global terror?

    We’ll soon find out.

    Lincoln’s warning of ‘a house divided can not stand’ may be more prophetic today than ever.

    If you can manage it: Cheers!

    Comment by Vera Charles — October 26, 2006 @ 10:28 pm - October 26, 2006

  11. Absolutely. I tried to state that in my post that I would prefer a non-Pelosi solution to reform of the Reps attitude but I didn’t do a good job of it. I voted (R) for all but my Governor this year in early voting. Bredsen is a good governor and a Democrat. It will be many years before I can vote a Dem to a national office again.

    Comment by VinceTN — October 26, 2006 @ 10:56 pm - October 26, 2006

  12. I love this rhetoric that comes from the party of the sore winners.

    Comment by Kevin — October 26, 2006 @ 11:12 pm - October 26, 2006

  13. Republicans would rather fight Reconquista than the Global War on Terror.

    I’m member of the military community and these Republicans or Independents/Libertarians that bemoan the deficit are about to go on the Boondoggle Pork Buffet and build the wall of the Century. The compromise that we want out of the Democrats is not on display when it comes to settling the in=mmigration problem/

    For this-they want to fracture the base, punish the President-screamed Impeachment themselves and are on a raging terror about that instead of the greater looming threats. For this they are willing to sabotage the militay effort.

    These same people who are so worried about spending and big government will positively scathe anyone who dares to ask-

    Where are you going to get the M-O-N-E-Y?

    Raise taxes?

    Raid the military? {that is already happening.}

    In the blogosphere it has become a question of cowing to the powers that be and Malkin and Reynolds have squashed any dissent.

    Sure it’s a problem but because Bush took a more lenient view the Democrats and more importantly the MSM took up arms.

    This problem has been around and encouraged for perhaps centuries but of course blame Bush.

    The Republicans cannot win wars they have the MSM and the Democrats and their own supposedly “our principles” are the priority base of Libertarians and Conservatives uniteed with the anti-Bush MSM.

    A lethal combo.

    Of course there are Libertarians *shocker* in the military that look at the guys and gals willing to risk everything to come over here as more worthy and potentially appreciative Americans than the whining mostly male keyboardists who are threatened by there supposed future state of being *outnumbered*. For this waaaaaay down the raod threat the House will be lost, and all around the world our enemies will REJOICE at the Vote of No-Confidence

    That is how it will be sold.

    {And all the while how was the popularity of this polled? If you indentified as Mexican American than did you avoid self incrimination and say that you were against compromise? A small business owner? Who over the phone is going to say “Ya I’m for something that is illegal. That was the way the question was worded a lot of the time. Of course Bush was scorched for trying to solve the situation short of mass deportations.}

    Of course opinion has been swayed because both the Conservative ad Liberal media has been hitting it 24/7 and all reasonableness has been squashed between the hatred towards the scapegoats and the hatred of Bush-and for that double up on hatred we will lose-the real war and our real haters will watch us defeat ourselves-can there be any sweeter “victory”?

    Comment by remnant republican — October 26, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - October 26, 2006

  14. Is it just me or does Nasty Pelosi bear a striking resemblance to Leona Helmsley, both facially and in demeanor? I can just see her saying: “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”

    Memo to Rudy G: you already nailed one Northeastern bitch. Make it two in a row for us.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 27, 2006 @ 12:13 am - October 27, 2006

  15. I’d like you all to read this and then tell me exactly why we should vote Republican. Behavior of 5 year-olds for personal gain doesn’t really build someone’s confidence that a Republican congress has anyone’s interest at heart but their own.

    Comment by Just A Question — October 27, 2006 @ 12:27 am - October 27, 2006

  16. My comment is that the people in our country who are so polarized in their ideology, saying nasty things about each other to just tone it down and and make your stance known on election day. The verbiage I’m hearing is mean-spirited, it’s cruel and does nothing but polarize everyone else. We are becoming a country of hating each other. Let’s think of things that bring people together rather than separate. Is there anything Democrats and Republicans can agree upon? It never used to be like this. I think with the amount of vicious attacks I’m hearing and reading against Pelosi or against anyone else they currently despise, is sad. I saw one Republican ad against Pelosi that was clearly attacking gays, I couldn’t believe it. With the current mood of the country, I expect people who don’t agree with me and what I’m saying here to come after me with their wild looks in their eyes, teeth grinding and typewriter keys flying.

    Comment by Ralph — October 27, 2006 @ 12:27 am - October 27, 2006

  17. Just a quote from the article I mention above. Sounds like payback is going to be a bitch fellows.

    The numbers bear this out. From the McCarthy era in the 1950s through the Republican takeover of Congress in 1995, no Democratic committee chairman issued a subpoena without either minority consent or a committee vote. In the Clinton years, Republicans chucked that long-standing arrangement and issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to investigate alleged administration and Democratic misconduct, reviewing more than 2 million pages of government documents.

    Comment by Just A Question — October 27, 2006 @ 12:36 am - October 27, 2006

  18. And another:

    This year, more than sixty-five percent of all the money borrowed in the entire world will be borrowed by America, a statistic fueled by the speed-junkie spending habits of our supposedly “fiscally conservative” Congress. It took forty-two presidents before George W. Bush to borrow $1 trillion; under Bush, Congress has more than doubled that number in six years. And more often than not, we are borrowing from countries the sane among us would prefer not to be indebted to: The U.S. shells out $77 billion a year in interest to foreign creditors, including payment on the $300 billion we currently owe China.

    Comment by Just A Question — October 27, 2006 @ 12:43 am - October 27, 2006

  19. Behavior of 5 year-olds for personal gain doesn’t really build someone’s confidence that a Republican congress has anyone’s interest at heart but their own.

    I put very little credence in articles, supposedly against Congressional corruption, that fail to mention Barney Frank’s prostitution ring, Cynthia McKinney’s run-ins with everyone, Nancy Pelosi’s campaign finance fraud, Allen Mollohan’s mysterious rerouting of millions of dollars — and thinks they’re fooling anyone into thinking they’re “bipartisan” by putting william Jefferson in what amounts to a footnote.

    Not a word is breathed about any of those in Rolling Stone.

    And what that makes obvious is that Democrats don’t consider any of those to be wrong or corrupt.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 27, 2006 @ 1:35 am - October 27, 2006

  20. Religious Conservatives Cheer Ruling on Gays as Wake-Up Call
    By Alan Cooperman
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, October 27, 2006; Page A07

    The New Jersey court decision that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples was bad news for social conservatives — the bad news they were hoping for.

    “Pro-traditional-marriage organizations ought to give a distinguished service award to the New Jersey Supreme Court,” said the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.

    Land and other conservative religious leaders predicted that the court’s 4 to 3 ruling, which was handed down Wednesday, would boost turnout of social conservatives in the midterm elections, particularly in the eight states that have constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage on the Nov. 7 ballot.

    “I have to think there are Democratic strategists out there thinking the words of the old Japanese admiral: ‘I fear all we’ve done is wake a sleeping giant,’ ” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Washington-based advocacy group. “They were coasting into an election with a Republican base with dampened enthusiasm. This brings it all back home to the base, what this election is about.”

    President Bush, at fundraising events in Iowa and Michigan, denounced the New Jersey ruling and called heterosexual marriage “a sacred institution.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601565.html

    Comment by sean — October 27, 2006 @ 1:37 am - October 27, 2006

  21. #20. Forgot to add: Bush denounced the ruling. In calling heterosexual marriage ‘a sacred institution,’ I guess he means to say that gay and lesbian committed relationships are profane.

    Comment by sean — October 27, 2006 @ 1:39 am - October 27, 2006

  22. Of course, you had nothing to say to that effect when John Kerry made
    similar comparisons, did you, sean?

    In fact, I don’t recall you saying he meant that gay and lesbian relationships were “profane” when Howard Dean went up and babbled about the sacred importance of marriage being between a man and a woman on The 700 Club.

    Wonder why?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 27, 2006 @ 2:18 am - October 27, 2006

  23. #9
    Mike Pence has

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 27, 2006 @ 3:19 am - October 27, 2006

  24. How about the politics of hate that President Bush is using in supporting Republican candidates? He used gay-baiting in his support yesterday for candidate Lamberti by attacking the ruling the New Jersey Supreme court made the other day to which verified equal rights for gay couples with straight couples. He said he stood for morals. Really?

    Comment by Kevin — October 27, 2006 @ 6:16 am - October 27, 2006

  25. Bush said he supported civil unions, which in Kevin’s world equates to “load ’em up in cattle cars and send them to the camps.”

    Comment by V the K — October 27, 2006 @ 8:29 am - October 27, 2006

  26. sean-of-the-lower-case-clan… sorry to burst your paranoid bubble but yesterday afternoon I and Michigan-Matt partner as well as 5 other gay conservative couples attended a fundraiser here in Michigan for GOP Senate candidate Bouchard (running against Debbie StupidCow). We did the lunch. We did the photo ops for big contributors with President Bush. We were treated warmly by all, appreciated by all, encouraged by the President when he learned that 3 of us had adopted kids and are building families.

    From the Secret Service personnel, to the photo op handlers, to the luncheon crowd made up of lots of social conservatives, to the candidates in the Reception line, to the President… gracious, charming, accepting, open.

    What I heard in the rally before hand was the President’s concern that yet another liberal activist court was trying to set policy… something that should be left up to each state LEGISLATURE or the voters… not the courts where our GayLeftBorg leaders target most of their attention.

    Pop.

    That was your paranoid bubble of delusion gettign burst, sean.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 27, 2006 @ 9:36 am - October 27, 2006

  27. Web Reconnaissance for 10/27/2006…

    A short recon of what?s out there that might draw your attention….

    Trackback by The Thunder Run — October 27, 2006 @ 10:47 am - October 27, 2006

  28. Just a Question: are you serious about quoting a Rolling Stone magazine article??? As something informative or definitive????

    Good God, what’s next… Wiki cites and references to the Daily Prophet? Or maybe you ought to just quote directly from DailyKos, the AFL-CIO Blog, MediaMatters (Not), or DrDean’s Blog for the Hopeless Ineffectual Partisan Hack.

    Rolling Stone? Gheesh. Get serious, will you.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 27, 2006 @ 12:36 pm - October 27, 2006

  29. Just goes to show you: If you have an IQ under 90 and a bad face-lift, you too might also be considered for the Dhimmicrat leadership.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 27, 2006 @ 3:54 pm - October 27, 2006

  30. Well boys, the drapes are in the mail. The cloak of corruption is liftng and the boys at Justice and the FBI have their hands full. You are welcome to join us in our persuit of liberty and justice for all.

    Comment by Madame Nancy Pelosi — November 8, 2006 @ 9:55 am - November 8, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.