Gay Patriot Header Image

Drag Queens, Nancy Pelosi & the Worst Stereotypes of Women

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:11 pm - November 20, 2006.
Filed under: Congress (110th),Liberals,Movies/Film & TV

One of the reasons I call drag potentially poisonous is that drag queens often act out the worst qualities of the women they impersonate. We see the vindictive, cruel Bette Davis of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? rather than the strong, but sensitive character she portrayed in The Virgin Queen. To be sure, I think most gay men who do drag recognize that they are portraying a caricature of the feminine rather than probing the real meaning of that quality.

The potential for drag to be poisonous is that we might see these caricatures as embodying the essence of the feminine and lose sight of that quality’s appeal, particularly to men who seek romantic relationships with our own gender.

Nancy Pelosi seems to be providing another opportunity for us to see the worst aspects of the feminine embodied in a real woman. She seems determined to prevent Jane Harman, the only woman in line for a major committee chair, from taking charge of the House Intelligence Committee. (If Pelosi has her way, it seems New York’s Nydia Velazquez will be the only female chair of any House committee when she takes over Small Business.)

It seems with Pelosi that “everything is personal.” Incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (whose candidacy Pelosi opposed) “acknowledged yesterday that he was seeking assurances from presumptive Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she would not retaliate against his supporters after he won the No. 2 House leadership post.” (Via Powerline.)

It says a lot that members of her own caucus fear Mrs. Pelosi might retaliate against Democrats who bucked her choice for Majority Leader. It’s striking that not only does she oppose making Harman chair of the Intelligence panel, but that she has also told her California colleague that “she will not be reappointed to the committee.” What incredible and “Petty Vindictiveness.”

Given the way Mrs. Pelosi has behaved since the Democrats won control of Congress, it seems that she is seeking to become a new model for her Castro Street constituents to caricature. Perhaps, like Bette Davis, she has qualities beyond her campy, over-the-top roles. But, in recent days, those more responsible qualities have not been readily apparent.

As long as we see drag merely as caricature and not reality, it does not become particularly poisonous. It shows in exaggerated form the darker aspects of the feminine. It’s important that we also recognize the other aspects of the feminine, qualities that we should strive to integrate inyo our own lives. Perhaps, Mrs. Pelosi will learn from her recent mistakes and provide the type of leadership that will make those qualities more manifest. And so show how a woman can lead and be a role model for men as well as women.

But, given her behavior these past few weeks, I wouldn’t count on it.

Share

48 Comments

  1. you guys should change your tagline…I find it hard to believe you represent conservative lesbians/women when you use the most misoginyst language you can think of any time you attack a female liberal / democrat. How about making your point without attacking the fact that she’s a woman and her looks?

    Comment by Kevin — November 20, 2006 @ 6:05 pm - November 20, 2006

  2. GPW,

    Very interesting observation … but the likelihood Speaker-Select Pelosi wil learn from this is nearly identical to the likelihood the November elections were just a bad dream 🙂

    Comment by Wendy — November 20, 2006 @ 6:22 pm - November 20, 2006

  3. Dan…. Ouch!

    LOL

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 20, 2006 @ 6:35 pm - November 20, 2006

  4. Dan,

    It amazes me you got both of your Bette Davis’ characters analogies wrong.

    They were both, IMHO, the opposite of what you espouse.

    Therefore, I can’t give much credence to your concept of Pelosi, even though I’m keeping a keen watch on her, just incase you get lucky. 🙂

    monty

    Comment by monty — November 20, 2006 @ 6:38 pm - November 20, 2006

  5. Yeh Kevin… spoken from someone who I am sure never criticized Katherine Harris because of HER looks, dress, etc.

    Give it up.

    Comment by GayPatriot — November 20, 2006 @ 6:38 pm - November 20, 2006

  6. Bruce.

    Stretch it first, dear and stay on those meds. 🙂

    monty

    Comment by monty — November 20, 2006 @ 6:41 pm - November 20, 2006

  7. One of the worse legacies of feminism is this idea that women are inherently better than men. They are not, and Nancy Pelosi is showing us just how small minded, catty and vindictive women can be. Its’ one thing when it happens in High school, or when one comes across such a woman as a boss. It is terrible when these are the actions of our first woman speaker of the house.

    Comment by Leah — November 20, 2006 @ 6:42 pm - November 20, 2006

  8. Kevin, on this blog, I have praised at least two liberal women, notably Jane Harman and Dianne Feinstein. I am only faulting Mrs. Pelosi for, in recent days, embodying the worst stereotypes about women. Were I to blog about Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Harman or a conservative woman, say, Lady Thatcher, I would use entirely different language.

    And Wendy in #2, I fear, alas, that you may be right.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 20, 2006 @ 6:43 pm - November 20, 2006

  9. How about making your point without attacking the fact that she’s a woman and her looks?

    Um…..what exactly in this post attacks Pelosi’s looks?

    Or are you simply using the usual Dem tactic of screaming “misogynist” any time a female Democrat is criticized?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 20, 2006 @ 6:43 pm - November 20, 2006

  10. Bruce,

    You mean ol’ Katie Harris didn’t stick those boobies out to influence her “standing”?? LMAO

    monty

    P.S. Hope you are feeling better.

    Comment by monty — November 20, 2006 @ 6:45 pm - November 20, 2006

  11. oh, and Monty, we’ll have to agree to disagree on Bette Davis’ chararacters — unles you want to make a good case why I’m wrong. I’m ever eager for a good discussion of movies.

    Recall, that in Virgin Queen, Bette’s Queen Elizabeth overcomes her bitterness at losing Richard Todd’s Sir Walter Raleigh to the bland Bess Throckmorton portrayed by Joan Collins and releases him from prison, sad at the end that the cost of being a good queen means an absence of romance, a truly powerful and emotional ending to a film where the only highlight was Bette’s performance. (In that movie, Joan Collins was like Ben Affleck in most of his films, taking up space that could have better been used by someone who could act.)

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 20, 2006 @ 6:48 pm - November 20, 2006

  12. My dear friend, Dan.

    Baby Jane was the innocent in that picture. Blanche was the one who creates facts to make Jane feel she was at fault for their crippled situation…. She went off the deep end, much like the Repubs. did to the Dems. 🙂 :,) 🙂

    She was found guilty of something she didn’t do and set-up by the truly guilty party.

    Virgin Queen is next. 🙂

    monty

    Sound familiar?? 🙂 🙂

    monty

    Comment by monty — November 20, 2006 @ 7:06 pm - November 20, 2006

  13. And concerning The Virgin Queen…..

    I’ve seen so many screenplays about Eliz. 1st that I can’ recall the difference between them all. 🙂

    monty

    Comment by monty — November 20, 2006 @ 7:30 pm - November 20, 2006

  14. 8: Then i would suggest you blog on what you disagree with about Ms. Pelosi’s politics and not about how something as irrelevant as her looks come into the discussion.

    5: I’m not sure how someone looks directly correlates to their character, politics, etc. Jack Abramoff is pretty good looking, but he’s a greedy pig (I wonder if you would have waxed so eloquently about him if he wasn’t good looking). My opinion of how good or bad looking Ms. Harris has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a bit of a nut case and deserved to lose her bid for the senate.

    And by the way, I notice you don’t harp on men’s looks in the way you have attacked Pelosi here. You’re simply grasping at straws because now it sticks in your craw that the people have voted and now democrats are in control of the congress.

    Comment by Kevin — November 20, 2006 @ 7:58 pm - November 20, 2006

  15. “As long as we see drag merely as caricature and not reality, it does not become particularly poisonous” sounds like an argument that could be equally applicable to a blackface minstrel show. After all, “it shows in exaggerated form the darker aspects of”…well…

    Comment by Maggie Leber — November 20, 2006 @ 9:10 pm - November 20, 2006

  16. Dan, it appears your sources for this attack on Pelosi are not what one would call unbiased: Powerline and the Washington Times. I would note that neither of these sources give any evidence for their claim of a catfight. They – and you – ignore the fact that Harmon is under federal investigation for her relationship with AIPAC (via Greenwald). I believe a good rule of thumb should be that no committe chair be under investigation, don’t you? Harmon has also been a strong supporter of Bush’s warrantless wiretaps. Frankly, the idea that a female political leader’s strong disagreement with another female politician has to be a “catfight” instead of an honest clash of beliefs borders on misogyny. Furthemore, I’m surprised at a conservative suggesting that Harmon deserves her committe chair because of her gender:

    If Pelosi has her way, it seems New York’s Nydia Velazquez will be the only female chair of any House committee when she takes over Small Business.

    Comment by Ian — November 20, 2006 @ 9:20 pm - November 20, 2006

  17. Kevin in #14, I never blogged about Mrs. Pelosi’s looks.

    And Maggie in #15, fair criticism. Very fair indeed.

    And Ian in #16, the Washington Times sources Hoyer himself. And Greenwald notwithstanding, Jane Harman Is *NOT* “Currently” Under Investigation.

    Nor did I say that Jane Harman deserved her committee chair because of her gender, but merely that she shouldn’t be denied it because of her gender. I believe she deserves it by her intelligence and even-handed manner. Despite her liberal politics, she has been a good representative, liberal in her beliefs, yet respectful of her more conservative colleagues. She has the right temperament to head such an important committee.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 20, 2006 @ 9:58 pm - November 20, 2006

  18. Everyone needs to lighten up. I think Speaker Pelosi como drag queen is a creative and funny take on things.

    Comment by Bla — November 20, 2006 @ 10:32 pm - November 20, 2006

  19. Kevin,

    Where in the initial post is Ms. Pelosi’s looks brought up ? What is brought up is the feminine trait of, for lack of a better term, ‘holding a grudge’, or ‘not letting things go’; and how this trait is detrimental to good governance. You may want to reference chapter 4 of ‘Why Gender Matters’ by Dr. Leonard Sax (page 58 in the hardback 1st edition) for more information on this.

    It seems you were the one for who inserted the ‘looks’ issue with respect to Ms. Pelosi.

    Comment by Wendy — November 20, 2006 @ 10:52 pm - November 20, 2006

  20. #17: Actually, the investigation is still open although no wrongdoing has been found. Wow, that’s a relief! It does not get around the fact that she has been supportive of warrantless wiretaps which I – and perhaps Pelosi – find a serious problem. She has also been all too supportive of Bush’s Iraq war although she seems finally to have caught up to where most of America is on that subject. In any event she is not much of a liberal having had to deal with a primary challenge from the left. Indeed, when a committed conservative such as yourself has such good things to say about Harmon, it hardly supports the contention that she is somehow on the left of the Dems. Finally, while you didn’t actually claim she deserved her chair based on her gender, that was the only implication I could see from what I quoted from your post.

    And there, we’ve had a good discussion on how politically Jane Harmon differs from Dems like myself. Why is it so hard to imagine that Pelosi’s disagreements with Jane are similarly politically-based?

    BTW, is the “catfight” hypothesis backed up by any substantive evidence? You know, like whether or not Hramon wore the same designer dress to a ball even after Pelosi had told her of her own plans to wear that same dress? 😉

    Comment by Ian — November 20, 2006 @ 11:07 pm - November 20, 2006

  21. Wendy writes…

    “Where in the initial post is Ms. Pelosi’s looks brought up?”

    It wasn’t, Wendy, and GPW himself tried to tell kevin the same thing. However, it seems kevin rarely (if ever), you know, reads the original posts, choosing instead to emote.

    Then kevin had the unmitigated gall to state the following:

    “Then i would suggest you blog on what you disagree with about Ms. Pelosi’s politics and not about how something as irrelevant as her looks come into the discussion.”

    Listen, sweetie, were it not for GPW’s congenial demeanor, I’m sure he’d say to you exactly what I’m about to say. Namely, that this isn’t your blog, so what Bruce, Dan, Nick & John choose to write is of no concern to you or anyone else participating here. What arrogance!

    If you can’t appreciate that, then feel free to go throw your temper tantrums elsewhere. Before you do that, however, may I suggest you take the time to actually proofread your comments. Your grammar is atrocious.

    Have a nice day.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 20, 2006 @ 11:12 pm - November 20, 2006

  22. Busy night tonight. Ian writes…

    “…she has been supportive of warrantless wiretaps which I – and perhaps Pelosi – find a serious problem. She has also been all too supportive of Bush’s Iraq war although she seems finally to have caught up to where most of America is on that subject.”

    Oh, so we’re back on that bullshit again, eh, Ian?

    Nice to know you’re at least consistent. Same meme, different day.

    Piss and moan all you want, because the characters you helped rise to power have shown no indication they’re following you into the abyss.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 20, 2006 @ 11:16 pm - November 20, 2006

  23. So instead of a woman who is extremely qualified for the job, yet Pelosi doesn’t like Harmon and she’s trying to pay back the CBC for voting for her as Democratic Leader, she’ll put up a man who was impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted on Eight articles of Impeachment and removed from Federal Office where only three senators voted No?

    So putting someone who was found to take bribes to lessen sentences of convicts in charge of the Intelligence Committee of the House of Representatives?

    Comment by Will — November 20, 2006 @ 11:19 pm - November 20, 2006

  24. #22:

    Oh, so we’re back on that bullshit again, eh, Ian?

    The Iraq occupation is unpopular with the majority of Americans. You’ve been relegated to the tiny if increasingly shrill minority. Deal with it.

    Comment by Ian — November 21, 2006 @ 12:10 am - November 21, 2006

  25. #23:

    she’ll put up a man who was impeached

    That’s what the superficial MSM would have you believe but if you tried thinking for yourself, you’d see that this gentleman has a great shot at the chair.

    Comment by Ian — November 21, 2006 @ 12:23 am - November 21, 2006

  26. I guess that if the speaker is female there isn’t a great feminist need to put a qualified (but independant) popular female democrat in a commitee chair position?

    They say there are actually fewer female people with authority at CBS (?) now that Katie Curic has the top spot… same dynamic?

    As for biased sources, ND30 linked to an article by Eleanor Clift… not right wing AT ALL. I made serveral observations on my blog which amounted to the total weirdness that people who consider themselves on the side of Pelosi freely talk about the fact that she’s going to demand loyatly and put the guy who won over Murth “on notice” and a bunch of other things that I consider incredibly negative, but apparently they *don’t*.

    Which suggests the very oddest things about their assumptions… basically that this sort of behavior isn’t anything to be ashamed of.

    Comment by Synova — November 21, 2006 @ 12:40 am - November 21, 2006

  27. Dan, for years and years, NancyP watched close-up and from afar how the legendary Speakers operated the House with a strong, steady leadership hand -exercising power, rewarding friends, protecting turf. She’s simply repeating what she saw over those years and what she heard on her Dad’s knee.

    All of this strikes a louder note for me beyond the drag angle: for all the talk about being “clean” on corruption, being a “uniter, not a divider”, about bringing transparency in Congress –NancyP is running in the opposite direction on all those points. It’s almost like she believes the political game can be won by running to your weakness.

    And before any of the lower-case-clan strike up the band about “criticism” of NancyP and this is all about frustration about the election results for sore losers, I’d like to remind them we still live in America and critical thinking is not yet illegal. It may for the Democrat caucus after Jan 07… but for now, it’s healthy for the republic on which we stand.

    You know, the Democrats in Congress may be the WORST thing going for their side in 2008. Hmmm.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 21, 2006 @ 9:39 am - November 21, 2006

  28. ian yet continues to insist…

    “You’ve been relegated to the tiny if increasingly shrill minority. Deal with it.”

    Ian, I would advise you to pay attention to what your Dear Leaders are doing, sweetie. While the MSM have done a bang-up job of pulling the Jedi Mind Trick on weak-miinded lemmings such as yourself, the dhimmicrat leadership have shown no inclination to follow you into the abyss. That’s a point your soiled diaper-like response failed to address, by the way.

    As for “shrill,” that’s the biggest laugh I’ve had all week!! You, my favorite little victim, are the poster-queen for shrillness.

    Not to mention intellectual dishonesty, cowardice, petulance, etc, etc, etc….

    I’ll deal with having lost the congress, if you, dear ian, can take that oh-so-important first step and admit your own character defects. Perhaps together, you and I can find the answers.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 21, 2006 @ 10:08 am - November 21, 2006

  29. OT –

    Word this morning out of Hollywood on the death of acclaimed director Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, Prairie Home Companion, The Player). No word yet on the manner of death, but it is so far presumed to be natural causes (Altman was 81 years old).

    I detested the man’s politics, but I adored his work, especially “Gosford Park.” His artistry will be missed, and his work will continue to be a HUGE influence on my career.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 21, 2006 @ 11:50 am - November 21, 2006

  30. Ian: Hastings has a great shot because the Speaker gets to appoint members to the Select Committee on Intelligence.

    Apparently you think I’m a lemming, however, I for one understand the difference of having a great chance and being qualified.

    So… someone trying to take money from convicted felons is a gentleman? If that’s your definition of a gentleman, then I now know why you call Nancy Pelosi a lady (even though I don’t think ill of her personally).

    Comment by Will — November 21, 2006 @ 12:48 pm - November 21, 2006

  31. And for Reyes… You’ve proven GPW’s point to a tee… THE RANKING MEMBER of this Committee is immensely qualified to be Chair of this Committee, but for some reason (and most believe it to be personal) Pelosi will not give the job to the most QUALIFIED member of the Democratic Caucus serving on the Committee.

    All evidence points to her bowing to pressure from the CBC (the group that helped give her the position she currently has as Democratic Leader) and trying to appoint Hastings. Here’s hoping she could just do what she SHOULD do and appoint Harmon; regardless of how qualified Reyes is, he’s not the senior member of the Committee nor is even close to the top of the seniority list.

    But I guess this is the most transparent Congress we’re going to get. They’ll bypass the logical and customary choice (for personal reasons), and knowing she would be beaten by the House if she tried to appoint Hastings, she’s going to go deep and pick Reyes. So I see pettiness won’t be beaten but the thought of loosing a vote from her own caucus is what will do it to pick a minor member of Congress who is against actually protecting the border.

    Comment by Will — November 21, 2006 @ 12:59 pm - November 21, 2006

  32. Furthemore, I’m surprised at a conservative suggesting that Harmon deserves her committe chair because of her gender:

    But you are of coure all in favor of Alcee Hastings getting his seat because he is a member of The Congressional Black Caucus. Pelosi set herself up much as Kerry did. Kerry beat us over the head in 2004 with his (lackluster) military service, then complained when the quality and or veracity of that military service was called into question. Pelosiy starts out by stating she wants to have the “most ethical and moral house” and starts out by supporting Abscam Unidicted Co-conspiritor Murtha. Then she follows is by nixing Harmon in favor of bribe accepting, impeached, Carter-appointed Alcee Hastings. WHOM SHE PUTS IN CHARGE OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE! I wonder what those secrets will sell for.

    Comment by Chaz — November 21, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - November 21, 2006

  33. To tell the truth, I don’t know Harmon from Adam (Eve?) but from the various discussion I get the impression that it’s not her gender that qualifies her for the chair.

    I really *can’t* see a conservative suggesting that someone, anyone, be given a particular position *because* they are female or a minority or whatever, because conservatives tend to believe that women and minorities actually can make it on their qualifications. To point out that Harmon is not *only* qualified, but female to boot, is to point out liberal (and certainly *feminist*) hypocracy. What they *say* they want is equality in representation… many more women in positions of power.

    What seems to be the reality is that women don’t play nice together. The social dynamics don’t seem to resemble “leadership” at all, but rather the strictness to conform of the high school clique. Pelosi wants a posse.

    The fact that her “leadership style” seems to be so warped isn’t nearly so weird to me as the fact that her partisans freely share anectdotes about her determination to rule with an iron hand, passing out favors and punishments for those who don’t support her. As if it’s a good thing. Yeah, Nancy is going to rule with an iron hand… she’s a *strong* woman, tough and capable.

    You tell me… Gingrich was probably the most influential house speaker in history. Was he a bully?

    Comment by Synova — November 21, 2006 @ 3:33 pm - November 21, 2006

  34. Pelosi is a woman? I’m so glad you keep pointing that out.

    Comment by jimmy — November 21, 2006 @ 3:45 pm - November 21, 2006

  35. Synova asks: “… Gingrich was probably the most influential house speaker in history. Was he a bully?”

    I think he worked the GOP House caucus like a policy leader, not a partisan hack. Was he a bully? Nope; but don’t expect him to hold his temper if you suggest he exit through the back door of AF1.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 21, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - November 21, 2006

  36. 17 (& 19): Let’s see…you use Drag Queens in your title as well as bring up drag and Bette Davis in “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane”. (you return to it in the last 2 paragraphs) It’s clear your writing was done to intentionally bring up negative physical female images from the start. You went on for 2 paragraphs before getting to the point of the article about how Madame Speaker Pelosi is using her power to appoint who she wants and why. Rather than just writing on the topic of how people don’t agree with some of her choices, you had to add “tsk, tsk….how un-feminine of her” I seriously doubt you would have used the tactic had Pelosi been a man and was doing the same thing. Are men “un-masculine” when they make decisions you don’t like?

    Comment by Kevin — November 21, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - November 21, 2006

  37. No, Kevin, my intention was to bring up negative stereotypes of female behavior. I didn’t mention Ms. Davis’ appeareance in Baby Jane, but her qualities — “cruel, vindictive.”

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 21, 2006 @ 5:39 pm - November 21, 2006

  38. #36. Somewhere, there is a post on this blog about how Kerry is compared to a villain from the world of wrestling, I’m sure.

    Comment by sean — November 21, 2006 @ 5:42 pm - November 21, 2006

  39. Pelosi seems to be behaving stereotypically in ways that I consider very negative stereotypes of female behavior. Because her partisans seem to approve of these behaviors I almost wonder if they are portraying her behavior the way they are because they think what they are portraying is female strength, and maybe she’s not quite that bad, actually. Maybe.

    There’s a disconnect somewhere, as if a whole bunch of people don’t comprehend how loyalty works. Extending loyalty is good. Demanding loyalty is bad. Portraying the person you support as demanding loyalty is… it says something.

    For a while I hung around romance writers… some of them believed absolutely that normal social interaction included vindictive bitchiness if you offended the wrong person and worried they’d destroy their careers before they even started if they didn’t play that game. Some of the others looked around and tried to see that world and even though they could see that a couple people had bad manners, couldn’t even concieve of that kind of interaction being the norm or any sort of thing worth being worried about. A bit like parallel dimentions interposed on top of each other with half the people in one reality and half of them in an entirely different reality.

    I can’t say that’s not how their world works, only that I’m looking in from the outside, glad I’m not part of it.

    Comment by Synova — November 21, 2006 @ 6:39 pm - November 21, 2006

  40. Synova, I think it’s called a caricature of a politician… for NancyP it works. I’m not sure it’s calculated to send the message of “female power”… it’s simply who she’s become after years of training and driving for that opportunity to be Speaker.

    After a long time waiting in the wings and learning the ropes of politics –the “ropes” that can enable like loyalty earned, the “ropes” that can constrain and choke like the image of a harsh, unyielding, driven, power-mad woman bitching up the Capitol… and the ropes that are just pure, flat out fun… bigger staffs, nicer office, new drapes and, oh I don’t know, dashing policy initiatives just because you can (like Rangel’s draft, Conyers’ Downing St Memo-Impeachment panel, Frank’s repeal of DADT, etc).

    I think most Hill observers will tell you the new Speakers and Sen Maj leaders make lots of mistakes in the first 100 days. Some are forgivable if it happens to a member; some are not if it happens to a media personality; some are easily forgotten by voters. But all are rich with mistakes until a professional staff finally gets them under control. Kind of like the First Ladies and all the changes in hair styles, wardrobes, PC charities, speaking in the 3rd person, using the royal “We”, getting some pets for the WH, and giving the TV tour which is now mandatory. They make lots of mistakes until a professional staff can ride herd and bring the doggie to barn.

    NancyP is a caricature of a powerful politician in DC –it’s her, 100%; she should be the postergrrrl for “Women Inside the Dome”. It’s exactly why the Democrats will cease being in the majority in 2 years and why Hillary is harmed by every moment NancyP is on the stage, front and center, reporting for duty. Most Americans don’t know her yet… but she’ll engender that same level of passionate DISlike that has become Hillary’s hallmark.

    If Hillary and Bill were smart, they’d have NancyP off’ed like they did to Vince Foster (just kidding).

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 21, 2006 @ 10:03 pm - November 21, 2006

  41. I prefer to think of it this way; Veruca Salt has just been handed the Speaker’s gavel.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 22, 2006 @ 11:53 am - November 22, 2006

  42. HEY, NOW WAIT JUST A GODDAMNED MINUTE!!!

    I happen to think Veruca Salt could have been quite the catch (were it not for the fact that I already had a crush on Willy Wonka). 🙂

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — November 22, 2006 @ 1:12 pm - November 22, 2006

  43. Talk about drag queens in a cat fight: bloggers, heal thyselves.

    Comment by JonathanG — November 23, 2006 @ 1:59 am - November 23, 2006

  44. Ahh, Jonah demostrates that the proverbial “shoe” is on the other foot now and he doesn’t like all this mean criticism of poor little Dem leaders… fyi, Jonah, it isn’t “mean”… it’s valid, truthful and spot-on. PelosiCo Must Go! Dems lie, Iraqis die.

    Gheez, I didn’t think a woman existed that could make me pine for the days when the Dems’ female lead was poster-grrrl Mrs Hines-Kerry. Those were the good old days… bitch slapping the unruly Edwards’ kids, making fun of now-Chief Justice Roberts’ son, taking cheap seat pot shots at the Bush twins. Hmmmm.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 24, 2006 @ 10:36 am - November 24, 2006

  45. I’d like to make a couple of points.Hopefully,people can comment on them and not get into arcane points of what the Beatles’ songs actually meant or similar nonsense.
    First,to conssider Gingrich the most powerful Speaker in history is simply nonsense.During the 20th century both”Uncle Joe’ Cannon and Sam Rayburn were much more powerful.If we extend a few years into the late 19th century,Thomas Reed was also.I think Gingrich gets points for brilliance,but not as much as Reed.
    Brilliance and Speaker Pelosi seem to be a seldom used connection.Now,no one feels a stratospheric IQ is a necessity for politics.)The NYT’s article before the 2004 elections posited GWB’s at about 125 and JFKerry’s at 114.This was taken from their college boards and OCS scores.Still,Speaker Pelosi seems to,at best,fall between the two.Accordingly,there are lots of people in her party caucus ranging from slightly to lots more intelligent.Some of them are probably bright enough toi figure they can do a better job.It’s going to be interesting.
    Re’ her looks.It’s a bad job.

    Comment by corwin — November 25, 2006 @ 1:38 pm - November 25, 2006

  46. What exactly do drag queens have to do with Nancy Pelosi and the new Democratic majority?

    Your comments embody the real potential poison – patriarchal notions of what constitutes “feminine” behavior. If a man aggresively states his opinions and desires, he is seen as tough and forthright — a woman that does the same is labeled a conniving, manipulative, cat-fighting bitch.

    Welcome to 21st century gentlemen…your 1950’s notions are a long-dead anachronism.

    Comment by Manuel Ferreira — November 28, 2006 @ 12:39 pm - November 28, 2006

  47. Manuel, stating your opinions and desires is one thing; openly maneuvering to retaliate against people who you dislike personally, qualified as they may be for a job, is quite different.

    If Nancy Pelosi could only confine herself to stating her opinions and desires, your concern would be valid. However, what she’s making clear is that she makes the life of anyone who opposes her opinions or desires, or whom she perceives as an enemy, a living hell when given the opportunity.

    Nancy Pelosi has made a career of exploiting her gender to cover up unacceptable public behavior. I think it far more equalitarian for GPW to call her out and demand of her the same standard of behavior as he would a man than for you to excuse her actions based on her gender.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - November 28, 2006

  48. It is apparent that the only thing you people base your comments on it that nothing seems to matter in this instance other than the fact that GAYs are involved!
    Just like blacks, you seem to think that there is some sort of devine entitlement attached to being GAY, and that is the only pre-requisit to a new nation dedicated to placing GAYS into vital government positions, the private sector, the military, the entertainment and sports industries and so on. Where, may I ask, does this entitlement originate??? San Francisco?????

    Comment by bob j — October 26, 2009 @ 7:37 am - October 26, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.