Where’s Nancy? (Why Democrats Hide their Would-Be Speaker)
As the campaign for the midterms draws to a close, Nancy Pelosi, the woman who would be Speaker should the Democrats should win a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, is nowhere to be seen. Her Democrats are running a truly stealth campaign, criticizing the president and the GOP for failed policies and corruption while remaining mum on what they would do should they gain the majority at the same time as they hide the woman who would lead their caucus.
Obviously, Democrats fear that should Americans see this liberal Congresswoman as the leader of their party, they would be less likely to vote Democratic in Tuesday’s elections. Should they win by hiding their leader, the Democrats would put her in a position where she shouldn’t very well hide. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi would become the nation’s most visible Democrat. And I don’t think her angry partisan manner would play well outside the confines Bush-hating left.
Not only would her rise hurt the Democratic Party in general, but it could also hurt the Democrat’s 2008 presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton. First, she hurts the Democrats because for the past four years, since she became House Democratic leader, she has defined herself not by the policies she advocates, but by the tone of her opposition to the president. Once she is in the majority, people will expect her not merely to oppose, but to propose. Outside of her party’s thin 6-item agenda, Pelosi’s Democrats don’t have many ideas to hold their caucus together after their first few hours back in the majority.
Second, Pelosi’s rise hurts Hillary because of the similarities between the two women. Both come across as shrill partisans, neither with much appeal to non-Democrats. In the very “blue” state of New York in 2000, Hillary ran 350,000 votes behind Al Gore. As speaker, Pelosi could sour people, already cold to Hillary, on the notion of putting another partisan Democratic woman into a position of leadership. As Mickey Kaus put it:
Isn’t it possible that–if Pelosi assumes the Speakership and flops as badly as some Dems fear–she’ll perform an opposite function, namely souring the voters on the idea of a female executive? Two-years worth of saccharine robotic liberal pollster phrases about “America’s children” can do that.
(Via Instapundit.)
Given that Democrats have hidden the woman who would lead their party — and the U.S. House — shows once again that they’re running less on their ideas and their leaders than against the GOP. But, should they win a majority next Tuesday, just being against won’t suffice. They won’t be able to hide their absence of ideas — nor the shrillness of their leaders.
Before voting next week, Americans should wonder why the Democrats don’t want us to see the woman who would gain so much power should they win next week. Pelosi’s rise might certainly prevent that of Hillary, but it wouldn’t be very good for the nation to have as House Speaker a woman who has few ideas of her own and whose own party has seen fit to keep her under wraps during this all-important campaign.
UPDATE: In today’s OpinionJournal Political Diary (available by subscription), John Fund notes that Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s observations on Mrs. Pelosi. According to Fund, the former Speaker:
says that while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is still largely unknown to the American public, recognition of her very liberal record is slowly seeping into the nation’s consciousness. Should Democrats take control of the House next Tuesday, he says you can bet she will become a leading symbol of the Democratic Party.
And while some in the comments note the relative invisibility of the current House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, that’s because he’s of the president’s party. Should the Democrats win, Mrs. Pelosi would rise in prominence as did Gingrich in 1994 when the GOP won a majority because she comes from the opposing party.
And the prospect of her leadership, according to Gingrich, has helped the GOP:
Mr. Gingrich says he is detecting a late surge of support for GOP candidates in some districts based on the recognition of just what Ms. Pelosi’s Democrats represent. He believes that’s one reason why the San Francisco Congresswoman has dropped out of public sight ever since a glowing profile on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on October 22. “It seems clear that some Americans have glimpsed a future with her third in line for the presidency, and they don’t like what they see,” says Mr. Gingrich. “She has become largely invisible as a result.”
I would recommend your read the whole thing, but since it’s available to subscribers only, I’ll just encourage you to subscribe to Political Diary — only $3.95 a month.
UP-UPDATE: The Corner reports that “Nancy Pelosi is coming out of hiding [to campaign] for Bob Casey” in Pennsylvania. But, as ThinkProgress, a left-wing blog working hard to find Nancy, reports, she’s appearing (depending on the event) in tandem with other Democrats including former Vice President Gore, PA Governor Rendell and Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
I did follow-up on the links provided by those who claimed the Nancy wasn’t hiding and could find no evidence of her appearing at any campaign events outside her hometown of San Francisco until her Pennsylvania trip tomorrow. And even in those, she’s not the headliner.
79 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The GOP is also hiding President Bush in some ways as well. Apparently he is so unpopular that Laura Bush has a busier campaign schedule than he does.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 3, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - November 3, 2006
Anon1, the web-site you link provides no evidence of her campaigning for Democrats as Gingrich campaigned for Republicans in 1994. Yeah, she appeared with Clinton — but in a local event in San Francisco — where she was not the featured speaker.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2006 @ 1:26 pm - November 3, 2006
Nice try Gryphster… the spin don’t work tho.
Laura and George and George Sr and Barbara and lots of other Bush family members and the Cheneys are all out in force. If you checked the campaign schedule posted in many venues on the Net, you’d have known that before shooting off your mouth and looking like a major fool-tool.
But nice try at spinning. You and Ian need to get together and compare notes now that the raj is AWOL. I hear he’s been sputtering away on GayLeft blogs about being silenced by Bruce-Dan-et al because they’re afraid of his intelligence. LOL
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 3, 2006 @ 1:33 pm - November 3, 2006
If GWB is in “hiding,” then what is he doing stumping for Talent today in Missouri? And appearing in Texas and Georgia?
Nice try.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — November 3, 2006 @ 1:40 pm - November 3, 2006
And where’s Tom Delay? Is he in jail yet?
Get over yourself, man. You think being a liberal is the same as being a crook?
Oh wait, you probably do.
Could you be any more unreasonable?
Comment by ryan — November 3, 2006 @ 1:48 pm - November 3, 2006
I can just imagine how tight the cocoon is around Bush, even in the deep-red backwater sites he’s “focusing” on. They’ve never had any tolerance for dissent, so we can’t expect them to start at this late date.
Though I have to say I’m pretty amazed he keeps bringing up Iraq and insisting he’ll keep us there forever, and keep Rummy in charge of it forever, and even that he’s keeping Cheney (like he could just fire a Veep).
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - November 3, 2006
Not to mention Bush was in Montana yesterday, and I think either Nevada or Indiana as well. Hardly hiding.
As for Pelosi-to be honest she does scare me. There are some democratic congress members I like, but she isn’t one of them.
Comment by just me — November 3, 2006 @ 2:16 pm - November 3, 2006
C’mon Dan. Who wants to go see Nancy Pelosi when they can go see the Big Dog, Bill Clinton? (BTW, do you think Bruce snuck off to see Clinton yesterday in Tempe? Do you think he’d admit it if he did?
)Plus, she has already publicized her agenda for the first 100 hours, an agenda that is very popular with the American people. I’d be interested to hear your comments on it instead of simply attacking her using non-specific generalities.
Also, I honestly don’t know why you think she’ll become the nation’s most visible Dem. Heck, her counterpart, Hastert was pretty much invisible to the American people until his involvement in the Foley scandal and he’s been in the Speaker’s office for many years.
Finally, re your answer in #3 to anon: nothing in your post said anything about her campaigning with other Dems simply that she was being kept under wraps. Thinkprogress documents four national TV appearances and three major print profiles all in the last couple of weeks. But don’t feel badly, Rush also fell for this silly Drudge claim too.
Comment by Ian — November 3, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - November 3, 2006
As I said, they are hiding Bush “in some ways”. Bush is going to places where he knows he has a friendly audience. He wouldn’t be so welcome in CA so instead Laura Bush is coming out to to campaign for both Pombo and Doolittle who are in trouble (and shouldn’t be). Laura Bush has been campaigning in as many as 4 states a a day. Bush is just sticking to places where he won’t be negatively received. In other words, he’s trying to rally the faithful rather than sway the undecided. And the truth is that in many places his campaigning for the GOP candidate would be a detriment, not an asset to the GOP in that race.
The President is not well-liked in many parts of the country, and I suspect its not just in blue states anymore. I don’t know why so many on this blog are in denial about that. Karl Rove certainly isn’t.
No doubt if the wind blows in the Democrats favor next week everyone here will claim that it was due to a successful smear campaign run by the MSM, rather than the fact that the GOP has faltered. But we will see.
The GOP may still come out on top, but if they do, it won’t be because they deserve to. Whats really pathetic is that if the Democrats do win next week, it won’t be becasue they are so terriffic, but because the GOP has been so lousy.
As far as the usual attacks from Michigan-Matt goe, well, its only what would be expected from such a habitual lying coward.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 3, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - November 3, 2006
You think being a liberal is the same as being a crook?
Maybe someone should ask William “Cold Cash” Jefferson. Or Harry “Invest in real estate with mobsters, pay no taxes and triple your money” Greid. Or maybe Claire “Offshore money laundering and tax evasion” McCaskill. Or Bob “Did I just hear the sound of a briefcase full of unmarked bills opening” Menendez. Or Nancy “let’s over-ride those pesky EPA regs middle class people have to obey so my nephew can build an upscale golf course” Pelosi. Or John “Let’s see how many millions in defense contracts I can earmark for my brother’s consulting firm” Murtha.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - November 3, 2006
Apparently, the Democrats and their willing propagandists in the mainstream press take the same attitude toward corruption as they do toward sexual predators like Gerry Studds and MelReynolds: It’s not wrong if you’re a Democrat. Thankfully, Republicans are held to a higher standard.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - November 3, 2006
v to the k = bizarro world republican.
and no one is hiding nancy pelosi, she was on 60 minutes like 2 weeks ago. it was a whole segment on her. she’s not a press whore, wow what a sin
Comment by lester — November 3, 2006 @ 3:34 pm - November 3, 2006
“This is the worst posting of the year. Go look at thinkprogress.com, and you’ll find your answer. Honestly, do you ever do any research?
Well he researches Drudge obviously, since this accusation was made by him a day or two ago.
“#
#
Anon1, the web-site you link provides no evidence of her campaigning for Democrats as Gingrich campaigned for Republicans in 1994. Yeah, she appeared with Clinton — but in a local event in San Francisco — where she was not the featured speaker”
Actually, this was not your criticism. You accused her, like Drudge (que coinkydink), of being hidden, “nowhere to be seen.” She has been seen plenty, as Think Progress documents.
Comment by JonathanG — November 3, 2006 @ 3:34 pm - November 3, 2006
I understand lester looked at the Marine banner a couple of threads down and commented, “i dont git it whats so funnee?”
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 3:42 pm - November 3, 2006
Yeah, sorry, this post is weak. Pelosi isn’t hiding and she’s been around a long time. If people were afraid of voting Democratic by seeing her, they wouldn’t be voting Democratic. In fact, while she might not be as charismatic as Denny Hastert (note sarcasm), she isn’t actually a bad public speaker. Boring, but hey, better than a lying fat piece of crap.
In any case, for V to the K…I won’t bother going through the long list of Tom “illegal gerrymandering” DeLay, Denny “coverup” Hastert, Mark “touches little boys” Foley, Katherine “give jobs for money” Harris or the dozens of other Republicans who have or will face charges of corruption. Let’s just agree that those DC politicians aren’t the most honest crew on either side of the aisle and move on. To my knowledge Nancy Pelosi hasn’t really been accused or charged with anything illegal or accused of any wrongdoing. No one is hiding her. And this posting is stupid.
Blah.
Comment by RealGayPatriot — November 3, 2006 @ 3:49 pm - November 3, 2006
Yeah, sorry, this post is weak. Pelosi isn’t hiding and she’s been around a long time. If people were afraid of voting Democratic by seeing her, they wouldn’t be voting Democratic. In fact, while she might not be as charismatic as Denny Hastert (note sarcasm), she isn’t actually a bad public speaker. Boring, but hey, better than a lying fat piece of crap.
In any case, for V to the K…I won’t bother going through the long list of Tom “illegal gerrymandering” DeLay, Denny “coverup” Hastert, Mark “touches little boys” Foley, Katherine “give jobs for money” Harris or the dozens of other Republicans who have or will face charges of corruption. Let’s just agree that those DC politicians aren’t the most honest crew on either side of the aisle and move on. To my knowledge Nancy Pelosi hasn’t really been accused or charged with anything illegal or accused of any wrongdoing. No one is hiding her. And this post was stupid.
Blah.
Comment by RealGayPatriot — November 3, 2006 @ 3:49 pm - November 3, 2006
Then explain why you and your fellow Democrats know nothing about this.
This is the real reason the Mollohan scandal has been buried; the group that uncovered it is the same one that caught Pelosi.
Pelosi herself said that anyone associated with fraudulent PACs or practices should resign.
I expect that RealGayPatriot, Ian, and the other Democrats who insist on such a thing as well will now demand her resignation.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - November 3, 2006
Tom “illegal gerrymandering” DeLay
Gerrymandering is completely legal when Democrats do it. Furthermore, the redistricting was upheld by the SCOTUS except for one district was did not meet Federal Requirements mandating racially segregating hispanics into their own districts, which the court has ruled several times in redistricting. It’s a mistake, not a criminal act. Unless you can name cases where legislators went to jail for violating the nebulous SCOTUC sniff test on race-based redistricting.
Denny “coverup” Hastert
No evidence of this. Just a lot of liberal hysterics.
Mark “touches little boys” Foley
Complete lie. No one has any evidence that Foley actually touched anyone underage (unlike Mel Reynolds and Gerry Studds, who have been ardently defended by Democrat partisans on this board. I guess James Dobson is right. Gay men do think it’s all right to seduce minor teenage boys, at least when Democrats do it.) Foley only sent TXT messages. He’s a creepy bastard who deserves to be castrated by a chainsaw, but unlike democrat heroes like Studds and Reynolds, he never actually had sex with a minor that we know of.
Katherine “give jobs for money”
At worst, what she did was no different than Democrat hero John Murtha. But unlike Murtha, the party has abandoned her like she was plutonium. Once again demonstrating that Republicans are held to higher standards.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - November 3, 2006
“Plus, she has already publicized her agenda for the first 100 hours, an agenda that is very popular with the American people.”
Care to back up that statement with some facts, Irritating And Nauseating?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — November 3, 2006 @ 4:06 pm - November 3, 2006
“No one has any evidence that Foley actually touched anyone underage (unlike Mel Reynolds and Gerry Studds, who have been ardently defended by Democrat partisans on this board.”
Really? Who defended Studds?
Comment by JonathanG — November 3, 2006 @ 4:14 pm - November 3, 2006
Well, looky here – we finally found Nancy! Unfortunately, she’s still not talking in person; she’s letting her acolytes do it for her:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227390,00.html
Only the Dhimmicrats could look at the lowest level of unemployment since May 2001 as being “worst since the Depression.”
FYI – our current unemployment rate is 4.4% (5% is considered “full” employment according to the DOL). When FDR took office, the unemployment level was at 23% – a fact he mentioned in his inaugural address in March 1933.
So we are at one-sixth the level of unemployment when FDR took office, but it’s supposedly the worst since 1933?
Fuzzy math, Dhimmicrat-style. I think it’s the same math they use when they announce they’ll hijack – oops, I mean takeover – Congress.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — November 3, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - November 3, 2006
The Gramps writes: “As far as the usual attacks from Michigan-Matt goe (sic)”
Now let’s see if this dog hunts… you’re 0-9 this week, Gryph.
Your line was that Geo Bush was being hidden in some ways. Then you go on to admit that he’s hitting the campaign trails, stumping for GOP candidates and helping tight races slide over to the GOP… which you now admit by claiming “The GOP may still come out on top”. Right, you don’t think the GOP deserves to win by your perverted standards –but we’ll leave that personal and completely unsubstantiated opinion alone.
Hmmm. Today and this weekend, there will be 23 Bushes campaigning in tight races. There will be 3 Cheneys in other tight races. Rudy, Newt, Mitt and Pataki will also be crisscrossing the Nation in other tight races. Bush in hiding? Not even in “some ways”. Now, you’re 0-10 this week on the Wrong Items and Wrong Side debate. I would like, at some point like your hero LurchKerry, you’d lick your wounds and go into hiding. Like Pelosi. Like Dean. Like Reid. Like Kennedy… oh wait, they’re mostly in the rehab clinics.
In fact, Gryph, if your tinfoil hat didn’t break up your reception of reality, you’d know that many of those same Bush family members –including the President and 1st Lady– will be in my home state of Michigan this weekend and thru Tuesday. Guess what motormouth? They’re coming because Debbie StupidCow’s seat in now in play by a mostly unknown sheriff from Macomb County… can you at least spell –”Ouch” /cause that’s gotta be hurting the big name Dems coming to bail her large, chunky ass out of hot water.
So, despite your claim that “in some ways” Bush is in hiding because, as your incorrectly claim again Gryph (nice pattern of being consistent at least –you and Kerry both) that “the President is not well-liked in many parts of the country” –the truth is he is still a huge draw and effective at turning out the base… which, you political incontinent, is what he should be doing in the last 4 days. Gheez, no wonder you’re on the losing side of so many issues –your lack of knowledge on fundamental political tactics is so pedestrian that it’s not surprising you make so many stupid statements.
For your own edification Gryph, pollsters talk about job performance and Bush’s is just about where Truman’s was heading into the last election. News flash, Gramps… Dewey lost.
It’s JOB performance, Gryph… not if people like him or not. His favorable-unfavorable continues to break exactly as it did on Election Day 2000. No change. You’re 0-10 this week… maybe the Democrats have a spot for you in polling analysis?
A little more time learning about politics instead of making fool-tool pronouncements for the GayLeft would do you (and us) a world of good, Gramps.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 3, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - November 3, 2006
RealGayPatriot writes: “Mark “touches little boys” Foley” –hey, to your side of the aisle that makes him a Saint… or at least someone to be admired… we’re going to be trying to undo the damage of MikeRogers and JohnAvarosis for a long time —those guys have helped re-establish the link between gay men and pedophile once again.
Just as we were getting over the Catholic priests scandal.
Nice going… with friends like that, does the gay community even need enemies?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 3, 2006 @ 4:51 pm - November 3, 2006
M-Matt, here’s something that might interest you:
http://rss.townhall.com/trackback/www/cfc520e3-3b8c-4fc9-a3af-59499eec2d57/
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — November 3, 2006 @ 4:54 pm - November 3, 2006
Michigan-Matt covers for Foley:
So Michigan-Matt apparently thinks Foley had nothing to do with the whole affair. Nor the members of Congress who knew of his predilictions and chose to do nothing about them for all these years. Demented.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 3, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - November 3, 2006
Who defended Studds?
By Category of Defense
Defended Studds because what he did was technically legal: torrentprime, mockmock, Devil’s Advocate, raj, CLS
Defended Studds because he wasn’t a hypcrite like Foley: jimmy
Defended Studds because he only
got caughtdid it once: CarlDefended Studds on the basis that his constituents re-elected him: Michael, JohnathanG, Carl
That’s just based on a quick perusal of comments on Mark Foley related threads. There was also a comment I recall from someone who, in response to a Studds comment, said that 16 year olds were “hotties,” but that has either been deleted or was made in a thread I missed.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 5:25 pm - November 3, 2006
RealGayPatriot writes: “Mark “touches little boys” Foley” –hey, to your side of the aisle that makes him a Saint…
Not to mention the Democrat candidate for governor in Ohio, Ted Strickland, who fought legislation in the House condemning pedophilia. Or, Nancy Pelosi, who was proud to march in a Gay Pride parade next to man-boy sex advocated Harry Hay.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 5:29 pm - November 3, 2006
Again, blah blah blah. I can name plenty of other republicans that have been caught up in scandals. Many of which were not forced to resign or chose to do so on their own. The point was that corruption is rampant on both sides and as much as we condemn those on the right, you condemn those on the left but we never seem to condemn our own. No, there’s no proof of much that I wrote no more than proof of much of what you wrote. Clinton, Reid etc…when exactly were they indicted? Did I miss the trial? Were they found guilty? Hm. In fact the few who actually have gone to jail or face charges are those on your side of the fence. But again, there is enough corruption to spread around.
As for Mark Foley…he was approached for several years by several gay groups who offered to assist him coming out of the closet and maintaining his seat in Congress. And he refused. The Victory Fund being one such organization. He continued to sit in the closet, legislate against those who offered to assist him in his coming out process and now you get pissy when he gets caught with his pants around his ankles and blame the very same gays who offered to help him all the while ignoring the fact he did something irresponsible that HE resigned for. You’d rather just point to Studds and keep trucking. Again, corruption is everywhere.
In any case, Pelosi, whether you like it or not, will be Speaker of the House. She’s not my favorite Democrat. I think there needs to be a change in power by the Democrats. I’m not a fan of Dean, Pelosi or Reid. But let us handle that and you worry about cleaning up your own party from the likes of DeLay and Foley and such. Stop hating because the Democrats are about to put a woman in the most powerful position in government a woman has ever held. Green doesn’t suit you.
Oh and blah.
Comment by Britton — November 3, 2006 @ 5:45 pm - November 3, 2006
The point was that corruption is rampant on both sides and as much as we condemn those on the right, you condemn those on the left but we never seem to condemn our own.
BS. Pretty much everybody on the right side of this blog has criticized and in many cases condemned Foley, Ney, and DeLay. The lefties never criticize their own, except to blandly mutter “everybody does it,” and then resume vitriolic attacks on the right.
The other point being made is that the media covers up for Democrat scandals, burying the Reid, Jefferson, Mollohan, Menendez, and other Democrat scandals. For example, in the Foley case, the three major networks carried over 150 Foley related stories. In the whole year the Mel Reynolds story happened… from allegation through trial convinction and pardon by Bill Clinton… the three networks carried only 12 stories. And the approach of lefties to owning up to these inconvenient facts is to claim anyone who points them out is ‘playing the victim card.’
This also gives the lefties cover. When it comes to Harry Greid’s land deals or Claire McCaskill’s money laundering, they simply chirp, “Oh, there’s nothing in the media about those stories. Therefore, they didn’t happen.” Thus, closing the circles.
The silver lining is that Republicans will now be forced to clean house if they want to reclaim electoral legitimacy. But the more the media cover for Dems, the more corrupt they will get until the stench is finally too much for the combined efforts of the New York Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC combined to cover up.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 5:56 pm - November 3, 2006
The hell with Nancy. Here’s Peggy:
“But here’s an exception: the state of Pennsylvania, which has been this year a bright patch of meaning. Its U.S. Senate contest has been the great race of the cycle, the one about which conservatives in their hearts most care. And not only conservatives, but those who know, for whatever reason and in whatever way, that there is something truly at stake here, something beyond mere red team and blue.
That would be Sen. Rick Santorum. The sense among so many people — including politicians and journalists — is that the Senate needs his sort, his kind.”
Read the Whole Thing! Vote Freedom–Vote Santorum!!!
She loves him, she really, really loves him: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan.
Comment by jimmy — November 3, 2006 @ 5:58 pm - November 3, 2006
Just realized we hadn’t set out blog clock back last weekend. Task now accomplished.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2006 @ 5:58 pm - November 3, 2006
V the K says in #27
LOL. Harry Hay must represent to you everything you hate about the “gay community”. I doubt that the man-boy issue bothers you as much as the fact that he was an unapologetic Communist. And he was never a member of NAMBLA or engaged in pedophilia. I met him several times before he passed away. He was a very complex well-spoken man. With many interesting ideas. He was among the first for example, to view being gay as cultural identity of any kind. If you view his life and views only through that particular incident, you do yourself a disservice whether or not you agree with any of his other views. And I doubt Pelosi would know the difference between Harry Hay and Oscar Wilde.
But of course your real goal here is as usual vilification and demonization of opponents, and in this endeavor, truth is your opponent as well.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 3, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - November 3, 2006
This is where Nancy Pelosi is.
http://tinyurl.com/y3safn
Comment by JustAQuestion — November 3, 2006 @ 6:32 pm - November 3, 2006
#19:
Only if you had asked nicely.
Comment by Ian — November 3, 2006 @ 6:42 pm - November 3, 2006
Please provide me one example of where Nancy Pelosi appeared at a campaign rally for a Democratic challenger (or incumbent) in a competitive race.
Those commenters who attempt to answer the question both link to web-sites with strong left-wing bias — and both make much of her appearance at a sold-out fundraiser at the Warfield Theater in her hometown, perhaps the most liberal city in America. And neither site mentions any campaign appearances outside San Francisco.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2006 @ 6:43 pm - November 3, 2006
I doubt that the man-boy issue bothers you as much as the fact that he was an unapologetic Communist.
You could not possibly be more wrong about that. Communists and pedophiles are both scum, but pedophiles are several rungs lower. If I were guarding the gates of Hell, and there was only room to admit either Gus Hall or somebody from NAMBLA, Gus Hall would wait in the cold.
If you view his life and views only through that particular incident, you do yourself a disservice whether or not you agree with any of his other views.
When the “one instance” is arguing that older men ought to be able to molest teenage boys, there probably is nothing else a man could do to convince me he isn’t a scumbag. But, on behalf of Dr. James Dobson, let me thank you for validating his stereotype that gay men are out to seduce young boys.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 6:55 pm - November 3, 2006
The Tide is coming in on you fellows, and you’re sitting here arguing about Nancy Pelosi’s travel schedule. At least you could be talking about your Republican compadre, Pastor Haggard. He’s one of you, you know.
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 7:01 pm - November 3, 2006
Eddie -
Do you suffer from internalized homophobia?
It sure sounds like it.
Comment by Frank IBC — November 3, 2006 @ 7:05 pm - November 3, 2006
Oh my… did someone just link to MediaMatters?
Comment by Frank IBC — November 3, 2006 @ 7:06 pm - November 3, 2006
Ted Haggard is such a major Republican figure. What office is he running for? Am I the only one who had never heard of him before yesterday? Let’s see if anyone here sticks up for him the way the lefties defended Gerry Studds. Maybe he could say that doing crystal meth with a gay prostitute was just a “botched joke.”
Hey, you know what Ted Haggard’s other big issue was? Global Warming. By leftist “logic,” that’s now completely discredited. Yeah! No more whining about ManBearPig. (Which is a reference to Global Warming and Al Gore, and not, as the culturally ignorant would suspect, Andrew Sullivan.)
Whatever. I didn’t give a crap about Ted Haggard yesterday, and I’m pretty sure I won’t give a crap tomorrow.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - November 3, 2006
Frank, internalized homophobia? Yeah, a bit — but it only hits me when I read the comments section (and some lead posts) on Gay Patriot.
And V, get used to that mug of Pastor Haggard. He leads 30 million of your fellow Republicans and he’s decided to deny, deny, deny…which means more press, more press, more press in the time remaining before we hit daylight.
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 7:21 pm - November 3, 2006
I thought he was a C&W singer.
Comment by Frank IBC — November 3, 2006 @ 7:21 pm - November 3, 2006
V the K: If I were guarding the gates of Hell
Don’t even think about it! I intend to apply for that job when I end up there for being an abomination.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 3, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - November 3, 2006
Where on earth do you get that “30 million” figure, Jerseyboy?
Someone we never heard of until yesterday controls 1/10 of the population of the USA?
Comment by Frank IBC — November 3, 2006 @ 7:34 pm - November 3, 2006
Of course, the prostitute accusing Haggard of having a gay affair flunked the lie detector test he demanded this morning when asked if he was telling the truth about the affair.
And I notice not a single one of the Democratic puppets here like Eddie had a single thing to say about the proof I provided in #17 that Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite who should resign by their own rules for committing fraud.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2006 @ 7:49 pm - November 3, 2006
A pyrrhic victory for the liberals:
Comment by Frank IBC — November 3, 2006 @ 8:09 pm - November 3, 2006
Of course, the prostitute accusing Haggard of having a gay affair flunked the lie detector test he demanded this morning when asked if he was telling the truth about the affair.
I don’t think this is a particularly important story. There are hypocrits and sleazebags of all shapes, sizes, and political and sexual orientations. However, I’m surely very skeptical of Haggard’s claim that he bought meth from a male prostitute and then threw it out.
And I notice not a single one of the Democratic puppets here like Eddie had a single thing to say about the proof I provided in #17 that Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite who should resign by their own rules for committing fraud.
I don’t know of a single member of Congress for whom resignation wouldn’t be the honorable choice, given their broken pledge to support and defend the Constitution. Well, I’d give Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) the benefit of my significant doubt on that.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 3, 2006 @ 8:46 pm - November 3, 2006
He’s the leader of the 30 Million Republicans? And nobody heard of him until yesterday? As a registered Independent, I guess I just no longer get the newsletter. I do, however, get a lot of crapmail from the Ben Cardin campaign, telling me I shouldn’t vote for “lawn jockey” Michael Steele because he supports tax cuts and opposes partial birth abortion.
I know the left has to smear everyone in sight, and claiming that because one guy nobody ever heard of did meth with a gay prostitute, but I don’t see the point of this one. Is it supposed to imply that all Republicans are doing crystal meth with gay prostitutes? Are there 30 million gay prostitutes out there? I don’t get how this connects to anything except the moral failings of one man, and I was also unaware that Democrats regarded consorting with prostitutes and doing drugs as moral failings? Who’s going to break the news to Barney Frank and Patrick Kennedy?
Or is this just another scheme to distract people from the real character of the freaks (John Conyers, Charlie Rangel), traitors (John Murtha), and crooks (William Jefferson, Alan Mollohan) who stand to gain power when the donks take the House next year?
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 9:57 pm - November 3, 2006
#45: Well, Haggard himself states that the male prostitute gave him a “massage.” A prostate massage perhaps?
Comment by Ian — November 3, 2006 @ 10:03 pm - November 3, 2006
V the K: I do, however, get a lot of crapmail from the Ben Cardin campaign, telling me I shouldn’t vote for “lawn jockey” Michael Steele because he supports tax cuts and opposes partial birth abortion.
Yes, and how about those Steele commercials condemning Cardin for taking money from the pharmaceutical industry. You mean Cardin took money from the people who work to reduce suffering and extend life, the people who have made HIV a chronic condition rather than a death sentence, who will soon make a pill to effectively treat many types of diabetes? How dare Cardin associate with them!!!!
I don’t believe for a nonosecond that Cardin is a freind of these true heroes in the pharmaceutical industry. But doesn’t it say a lot about Steele that he would use such accusations to try to discredit Cardin?
Incidentally, I totally agree with you about the utter unimportance of this Haggard thing.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 3, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - November 3, 2006
I think you’ve got the picture Ian. Did you get a load of Mr. Republican being interviewed in his car as wifey sat looking stunned next to him? Admitting he got a massage and drugs, but nothing more from a male hooker? Also said he met through a Denver hotel concierge. Apparently found the male hooker the old fashioned way — via the Internets.
To Doubting Frank above: the 30 million figure? National Assn. of Evangelicals. Go look it up smart boy.
And say, how can youse guys be such Bush sycophants and not be aware of other gay hypocrites having WEEKLY (Monday specifically) concalls with Karl, and photo ops at the WH with Bush? Sitting here verbally masturbating each other night after night about the horrors of gay marriage has left you rusty in the wits dept. and largely uninformed about your fellow travelers.
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 10:22 pm - November 3, 2006
how about those Steele commercials condemning Cardin for taking money from the pharmaceutical industry.
I don’t watch enough TV to see many political commercials, and I usually TiVo through them when they do show up. And I’m practical enough not to expect perfection in any candidate. I’d probably disagree with Steele if he really feels that way about pharmaceutical companies. But would that alone make me enough to vote for the tax-hiking, partial-birth abortion supporting socialist alternative, Ben Cardin? No. Every political contest comes down to a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche. Anyone who is good enough to be a saint and/or smart enough to be a prophet isn’t going to waste their time in elective politics.
Anyone see a little irony with the lefties in this thread? They act like, “Nancy Pelosi? What’s the big deal? She’s not that important to the Democrat Party.” (See IanRaj’s #9, for example.) And then they want to act like somebody none of us heard of before yesterday is suddenly the leader and symbol of the Republican party?
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - November 3, 2006
#34 – I figured as such, IanRajWhatever. You can’t provide the data to back up your statement, and whereupon you retreat into “my-poor-little-hurt-feelings” mode.
I rest my case.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — November 3, 2006 @ 11:04 pm - November 3, 2006
It’s a tough time for you V, right? I understand. Your Karl-promised 1,000-Year GOP Reich is sagging, if not absolutely falling apart, right before your eyes and after, gosh, just 12 short years — all under the weight of…
Corruption (DeLay, Cunningham, Ney, Abramoff, et al.)
Hypocrisy (Foley, Haggard, Hastert, Reynolds, Boehner, Fordham, and a remarkably large closet full of gay GOP staffers).
And let’s not forget, the big one, Incompetence (in foreign policy, Katrina, and most of all in Iraq).
And you’re pissed buddy (who wouldn’t be?) and badly in need of a devil to hate and all you’ve got is a Catholic grandmother from San Francisco determined to “empty the swamp”. Good luck with that.
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 11:08 pm - November 3, 2006
1. Karl-promised 1,000-Year GOP Reich
2. And you’re pissed buddy (who wouldn’t be?) and badly in need of a devil to hate
Have you met my friend, Mr. Projection?
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - November 3, 2006
And when Pelosi said, “empty the swamp,” does that mean she’s going to use her power to over-ride the EPA on wetlands protection so her nephew can build another golf course? Wouldn’t be the first time.
Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 11:16 pm - November 3, 2006
Nope, haven’t met him. I suspect you’re one of the few people who really know him though.
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 11:18 pm - November 3, 2006
Whoa V. You’re letting your many angry thoughts get in the way of a good repartee. Slow down a bit, will ya?
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 11:19 pm - November 3, 2006
#52 V the K: Every political contest comes down to a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.
I apreciate your very aprapos allusion.
However, I hold out hope that, sometime in my life, I’ll have better choices — someone who is not a socialist, for instance. And if I vote for the turd sandwich or the giant douche, I make it less likely that I’ll have those better choices. So I vote for someone I have basic respect for, or no one at all.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 4, 2006 @ 12:04 am - November 4, 2006
I regret saying “every political contest.” Rick Santorum is neither a turd sandwich nor a douchebag. (Bob Casey, is both. And so dimwitted I wouldn’t trust him to sit on a toilet the right way without help from his staff). Santorum fought tirelessly to help the poor and to help autistic kids and sick kids. i.e., people who are really suffering, not egocentric gay prima donnas whining because they can’t get a marriage license. The world will be worse off without him in the Senate.
Comment by V the K — November 4, 2006 @ 12:36 am - November 4, 2006
V the K: Rick Santorum is neither a turd sandwich nor a douchebag
Well, I don’t know about those particular labels. But he voted for an amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Let’s face facts — he thinks it’s pretty important that people not see my relationship, or yours, to be as valid as his own marriage. I don’t know if he’s hateful or bigoted; I cannot claim to know what is in his heart. But I do know that his fervor on this issue is, at least, tragically wrong-headed. And that’s enough for me to know that I hope that the voters of Pennsylvania have much better choices in the future.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 4, 2006 @ 12:45 am - November 4, 2006
So when is AS going to marry his BF, anyway?
Comment by Frank IBC — November 4, 2006 @ 2:16 am - November 4, 2006
kdogg -
And Bill Clinton signed a similar bill.
Comment by Frank IBC — November 4, 2006 @ 2:16 am - November 4, 2006
And Eddie, why do you keep dodging and spinning when confronted with the evidence I provided in post #17 that Nancy Pelosi conspired to commit election fraud and violate the law — which she says is an act over which anyone who commits it should resign?
I gave you proof that Pelosi is a corrupt criminal and a hypocrite — and you ignore it.
And as for her “Catholic grandmother” schtick, given her support of Gerry Studds, that must mean she supports handing little boys over to the pedophile priests.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2006 @ 3:07 am - November 4, 2006
Has Pelosi been actively campaigning at all this election season? It’s not like she’s a superstar and her presence would draw crowds, so I have a hard time imagining that she’s in demand as a fundraiser.
To say she’s “hiding,” one would need evidence of a change in activity. That’s pretty basic, and the absence of evidence suggests strongly that the fucktard post is just more of the same hot air that leaks out of Republicans on a regular basis.
Comment by jpe — November 4, 2006 @ 6:08 am - November 4, 2006
North Dallas Thirty, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to ignore your comment 17. I just missed its significance.
But, since you insist on the attention, let’s review your big ethics charge against Nancy Pelosi.
As support for the importance of the sins of Nancy Pelosi, you cite a group (NLPC) that claims exactly one Gay Old Party target among its dozen or so “hits” in its 13-year existence, and WTF, somehow missed Abramoff, Ney, Burns, Cunningham, DeLay, et al — it somehow missed EVERY ONE of those real corruption scandals. It’s #1 proponent? Rush Limbaugh. I don’t think we’re talking about an impartial judge in this case.
Get used to Nancy Pelosi, North Dallas Thirty. You’re really going to like her strength, persistence, and organizational powers. As for your parting shot on this…
“And as for her “Catholic grandmother” schtick, given her support of Gerry Studds, that must mean she supports handing little boys over to the pedophile priests.”
Now that’s quite a stretch, don’t you think? Perhaps you don’t. Youse guys are grasping at straws at this point. How sad it must be to watch a house of cards get caught in a windstorm.
Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 4, 2006 @ 7:35 am - November 4, 2006
#65 – “Has Pelosi been actively campaigning at all this election season? It’s not like she’s a superstar and her presence would draw crowds, so I have a hard time imagining that she’s in demand as a fundraiser.”
Gee, jpe (what the hell does THAT stand for), you must have been asleep during the 1994 midterm elections. You know, the one where then-House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich (a) presented the Contract With America for the voters and (b) stumped in as many local contests as he could in the fall of 1994 to ensure the House went Republican.
Contrast this approach with the Amber Alert issued for Nasty Pelosi. Not only does she only appear in ONE campaign draw, but it is in a “safe” district and she conveniently hides out from some of the more hotly contested House races in Texas, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania et al.
Like shooting fish in a barrel…too easy.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — November 4, 2006 @ 9:51 am - November 4, 2006
#61: And you know I think gay marriage is primarily an ego-driven vanity issue. To me, the well-being of impoverished people and sick kids is much more important than having a piece of paper from a bureaucracy expressing official state approval for my relationship. I guess we just have different values.
Comment by V the K — November 4, 2006 @ 9:58 am - November 4, 2006
#63 Frank: And Bill Clinton signed a similar bill.
I’m sure you realize that I’d never vote for someone like Bill Clinton, either, for that reason and so many others.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 4, 2006 @ 10:42 am - November 4, 2006
#68 V the K: And you know I think gay marriage is primarily an ego-driven vanity issue.
I do know that you think that, and I understand your reasons, but the question is: what drives Santorum’s fervor in trying to make sure gay marriage doesn’t happen? As I said, it may not be hate or bigorty or anything ugly like that, but at the very least it’s a depressing lack of understanding.
To me, the well-being of impoverished people and sick kids is much more important than having a piece of paper from a bureaucracy expressing official state approval for my relationship. I guess we just have different values.
Well, I know we do have different values. Any candidate I would vote for needs to have a basic respect for gay people and our relationships, and must be committed to a dramatic rollback of the socialist programs of the last 75 years or so. A lot of my friends, of both establishment parties, think I need to drop the “and” and will have to settle for an “or,” but I just won’t do that. At any rate, those are the values I consider in terms of candidates for public office.
Comment by kdogg36 — November 4, 2006 @ 10:51 am - November 4, 2006
I wouldn’t hide Nancy Pelosi; you could clearly make an argument that if conservatism means limiting inefficient government, shes clearly more conservative than Tom Delay, Speaker Hastert, and John Boehner.
She voted against the Iraq war, and had we not gone in there, we could look at the current deficit figures for what they are, not look at them and acknowledge that war costs aren’t figured in. We also wouldn’t have foreign countries financing as much of our debt as they are now. Wars cost money, if you don’t finance them properly and ask the next generation to pay for them, the next generation will end up paying MORE TAXES or just gut the military. Tax CUTS that aren’t coupled with spending cuts, are never conservative. You can’t give out subsidies to Big Business, fight a war, and give wreckless tax cuts. More importantly, we would have preserved lives and not seen an INCREASSE in TERRORISM and well, conservatives are always talking about being pro-life right?
Additionally, Nancy Pelosi voted AGAINST MEDICARE PART D, which is the worst piece of legislation passed this decade, and is basically a hand out of taxpayer funds to the Pharmaceutical Industry. Oh, that isn’t liberal speak, that is Grover Norquist/Chuck Haegel talk. THe largest expansion of an entitlement program is the most likely government expenditure that will bankrupt this nation.
Nancy Pelosi also knows how to check an unrestrained Executive and sets a good precedent for a future REPUBLICAN Congressman who get irked by a LIBERAL/DEMOCRATIC President who disobeys the constitution and thinks of themselves as above the low.
I don’t even need to talk about the FMA. Bob Barr’s explanation of why the FMA is so bad, and how it sets a terrible precedent for expanding Federal control over states’ matters is better than anything I could come up with. Of course Ms. Pelosi opposes the FMA, and well we all know where the party that allegedly advocates limited federal intrusion on states matter stands.
Conservatism used to be about conservation and thinking about the long term. It’s sad when on the major issues of the day, a lady proclaimed as San Francisco Liberal is a more principled conservative than just about every Republican Leader.
America is sadly still about brand names and drinking the kool aid that pundits and politicians pour for us.
Comment by james burgess — November 5, 2006 @ 11:13 am - November 5, 2006
“did follow-up on the links provided by those who claimed the Nancy wasn’t hiding and could find no evidence of her appearing at any campaign events outside her hometown of San Francisco until her Pennsylvania trip tomorrow. And even in those, she’s not the headliner.”
Jesus God, read your own post. It accuses her, following Drudge, of being invisible. I doesn’t say she’s not on the campaign trail. She has been repeatedly interviewed, as the link given you demonstrates. Presumably a lot more people get to see her on network TV than at a rally in West Virginia. So how can she be called invisible?
It’s BUSH who is campaign poison, who is being avoided by many candidates who have rejected his extremism. Thus it’s for exactly the reason you hypothesize Pelosi is not campaigning. It may well be that Pelosi is keeping a low profile in conservative areas. It’s also true that many of the Democrats likely to unseat Republicans are more conservative than her. I thought you were pleased that the Dems’ election won’t mean the death of conservatism.
Comment by JonathanG — November 5, 2006 @ 12:23 pm - November 5, 2006
#72
had we not gone in there, we could look at the current deficit figures for what they are, not look at them and acknowledge that war costs aren’t figured in.
This is a false (and often repeated) statement. The 2006 deficit number includes all spending by the goverment in 2006.
Comment by John in IL — November 5, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - November 5, 2006
nancy is busy working the illegals she hired to work on her millions in property in east bay. but please remember , the dems care for the poor ! HA !
its not looking like she needs worry about changing offices real soon in dc . the repub base apparently ignored the mediacrat propoganda campaign and are out voting early ! I just made calls for joe negron campaign and everyone on the list has voted early in martin county!
they were very ticked off that the dems tried to block the polls from posting the fact that a vote for Foley= Negron! Apparently, The dems like to disinfranchised certain types of voters and they did not appreciate it !
Comment by bert — November 5, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - November 5, 2006
Gees guys, cut me some slack. I’m in the middle of a bitch fight with that damn gay interior designer, Jacob. He wants teal blue drapes and i want wedgewood blue. Say, you guys know a good butch carpenter type? I got this woodshed project in mind. Once again guys, thanks for all of your support.
Comment by nancy pelosi — November 5, 2006 @ 5:10 pm - November 5, 2006
As support for the importance of the sins of Nancy Pelosi, you cite a group (NLPC) that claims exactly one Gay Old Party target among its dozen or so “hits” in its 13-year existence, and WTF, somehow missed Abramoff, Ney, Burns, Cunningham, DeLay, et al — it somehow missed EVERY ONE of those real corruption scandals. It’s #1 proponent? Rush Limbaugh. I don’t think we’re talking about an impartial judge in this case.
Why don’t you read the link?
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has fined two leadership PACs associated with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in response to a Complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) on October 25, 2002. The FEC also has fined three campaigns that failed to return excessive contributions from Pelosi’s PACs within 60 days, as required by law.
Under conciliation agreements reached with the FEC, Pelosi’s two committees — PAC to the Future and Team Majority — will pay $21,000. Julie Thomas for Congress Campaign Committee (D–IA) and Van Hollen for Congress (D–MD) will each pay $2,500, and Joe Turnham for Congress (D–AL) will pay $2,000. The three campaigns also agreed to disgorge $5,000 each to the U.S. Treasury.
Looks like you got caught in your lie trying to minimize Pelosi’s criminal behavior and corruption.
Demand her resignation, puppet.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 6, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - November 6, 2006
Political advertisement paid for by “Friends of Nancy Pelosi Who Get Away While Abramoff Gets Frog-Marched.”
Don’t measure the drapes in the Speaker’s office yet, Miss Thang. It ain’t over till every vote is counted.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — November 6, 2006 @ 3:46 pm - November 6, 2006
Peter, did you really say that without smirk or irony? ARe you really that much of a one-man freakshow?
Comment by God of Biscuits — November 6, 2006 @ 5:24 pm - November 6, 2006
The drapes are in the mail.
Comment by Madame Nancy Pelosi — November 8, 2006 @ 6:49 pm - November 8, 2006