Gay Patriot Header Image

If Republicans did it, she’d call it obstruction

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:09 pm - February 18, 2011.
Filed under: Democrats & Double Standards,Pelosi Watch

Pelosi says she’s ‘proud’ of Wisconsin Democrats who fled:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she supports the Democratic state senators in Wisconsin who left the state to stop a vote on curbing collective bargaining rights for unionized public employees.

UPDATE: Remember when the Democratic leader had “concerns about some of the language that is being used” by a handful of Tea Party protesters. Wonder if she has similar concerns about the language her ideological allies have been using in Wisconsin.  And now that she’s expressed support for the antics in the Badger State, we can soon expect her colleague Barney Frank to call on her to “differentiate” herself from the hateful signs comparing the Governor Walker to Hitler.

Share

29 Comments

  1. I suggest Pelosi and the entire Progressive Democrat Caucus show their solidarity by walking out of Washington … permanently.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2011 @ 6:19 pm - February 18, 2011

  2. I see where Barry has also weighed in against Wisconsin taxpayers. Obama has long since passed Carter as the worst president ever.

    The Governor should tell Barry and Nancy to mind their own business.

    The fact that politicians pander to gubmint unions is reason enough that public employees should be forbidden to form unions: the union sit on both sides of the table with no representation for taxpayers.

    Reading the comments to an op-ed linked by Drudge tells me that there are still a lot of people who think we in the private sector exist solely to feed their appetites… that there are a lot of people who don’t seem to get it: we’re broke and we can’t afford this stuff anymore.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116434554.html

    Comment by SoCalRobert — February 18, 2011 @ 6:22 pm - February 18, 2011

  3. Funny, the MFM seems much friendlier toward the Wisconsin State Employees than they did toward the Tea Parties. Wonder why… NOT!

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2011 @ 6:51 pm - February 18, 2011

  4. I have a hope… and it feels nice … that big-spending Congressional Democrats will feel an uncontrollable urge to flee Washington come, oh, February 2012.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2011 @ 7:18 pm - February 18, 2011

  5. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by G.G., DNC Fail!. DNC Fail! said: If Republicans did it, she’d call it obstruction http://bit.ly/fhqNcQ #tcot #tlot [...]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention GayPatriot » If Republicans did it, she’d call it obstruction -- Topsy.com — February 18, 2011 @ 7:27 pm - February 18, 2011

  6. Rep. Nancy Pelosi has zero credibility since she lives & breathes politics first; she will spin any statement to make the Democrats appear right & just. The facts don’t matter to her.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — February 18, 2011 @ 7:31 pm - February 18, 2011

  7. Perhaps Democrats, in an echo of their Vietnam strategy, feel they “must destroy democracy in order to save it”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2011 @ 7:43 pm - February 18, 2011

  8. I would be interested to know. if some state legislative Republicans did it in defense of some important conservative principle, how many here would call it obstruction or anti-democratic? And would ridicule it in the same fashion as they would these Democratic legislators?

    Comment by Cas — February 18, 2011 @ 7:50 pm - February 18, 2011

  9. So, basically, Cassie’s defense of the Democrat legislators is a tu quoque based on a supposition of how Republicans might behave in a hypothetical scenario?

    Weak.

    Comment by V the K — February 18, 2011 @ 7:58 pm - February 18, 2011

  10. [ shameless giggling ]

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — February 18, 2011 @ 8:40 pm - February 18, 2011

  11. #10 – Looking at yourself naked in the mirror again, huh Auntie?

    I’m on you like Clint Eastwood in “Gran Torino,” baby. Never forget it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 18, 2011 @ 8:58 pm - February 18, 2011

  12. Weak.

    And how interesting that having government USE FORCE ON PEOPLE to FORCE THEM into union bargaining, is treated by Cas (implicitly) as an “important liberal principle”, one so crucial that legislators should abandon their duties and flee to other jurisdictions to “defend” it. Who knew?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2011 @ 9:11 pm - February 18, 2011

  13. >>>I’m on you like Clint Eastwood in “Gran Torino,” baby. Never forget it.

    A violent racist, unable to adjust, that time has passed by?

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — February 18, 2011 @ 9:13 pm - February 18, 2011

  14. (continued) I mean, even Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that collective bargaining should not, repeat not, be permitted for public employees. So I would have thought that the *prevention* of collective bargaining by public employees would be an “important liberal principle”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2011 @ 9:14 pm - February 18, 2011

  15. A violent racist

    Somebody never saw _Gran Torino_ or understood what they were seeing. But, I don’t expect much from Auntie Dogmatic.

    As for your question, Cas: If you must resort to hypotheticals, kindly construct a better one. What situation could possibly need legislators to flee, rather than to stay and vote, as the best response? Perhaps if the Executive sent storm troopers into the Capitol to trap and slaughter the legislators, flight might be justified. In which case, the “important conservative principle” (so-called) would be to not get physically, literally murdered by a brutal tyrant. I could see legislators fleeing, then.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 18, 2011 @ 9:24 pm - February 18, 2011

  16. #10 – “A violent racist, unable to adjust, that time has passed by?”

    You can always tell a libtard has lost when she plays the race card. It means they have no intellectual capacity to debate on the issues.

    Not that I’m going to get one from the likes of you, Auntie Bitch, but you still owe me and the state of Texas an apology. Now is the time to try to redeem yourself or be faced with unending criticism until this blog ceases to exist.

    The choice is yours.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 18, 2011 @ 9:52 pm - February 18, 2011

  17. Hi ILC,
    My guess is that if a state republican minority were faced with redistricting along the lines of the Texas situation a few years ago, I think they might skidaddle to bring needed publicity to the injustice they faced. Could be wrong I admit, but seems too good an opportunity to pass up …

    Also, Eastwood did play a racist character in Gran Torino (I think that was the point–that a person can change when the circumstances are right); and one for whom violence was a ready resort (though the film makes pretty clear that he does face provocation and has cause) . I enjoyed the way he changed over the course of the movie as he got to know his Hmong neighbours better.

    Comment by Cas — February 18, 2011 @ 9:54 pm - February 18, 2011

  18. I would be interested to know. if some state legislative Republicans did it in defense of some important conservative principle, how many here would call it obstruction or anti-democratic? And would ridicule it in the same fashion as they would these Democratic legislators?

    Actually, Cas, why don’t we deal in reality, and talk about how you and your Barack Obama Party fully support and endorse running away?

    And then let’s talk about how you attack and whine about Republicans doing what you fully endorse and support Obama Party members doing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2011 @ 12:29 am - February 19, 2011

  19. My guess is that if a state republican minority were faced with redistricting along the lines of the Texas situation a few years ago, I think they might skidaddle to bring needed publicity to the injustice they faced.

    BWAHAHAHA!

    You mean, if Republicans were ever faced with a situation of redistricting in which they weren’t the minority, they would run away, just like Obama Party members do?

    It’s happened several times already, Cas. No running, though; they stayed and did their jobs.

    Clearly Republicans are superior to Obama Party members, who are cowards who run away and try to obstruct when they lose in a democracy.

    And of course, Cas, Republicans are superior to individuals like you who run away and cry and whine when they lose.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 19, 2011 @ 12:31 am - February 19, 2011

  20. along the lines of the Texas situation a few years ago

    So let’s see, Cas. To buttress your hypothetical, you came up with… another example of *Democrat* officials running away.

    Awesome.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2011 @ 2:45 am - February 19, 2011

  21. Hi ILC,
    “another example of *Democrat* officials running away.”
    No, you asked for the hypothetical, I gave you one. I didn’t say you would like it. :)

    Comment by Cas — February 19, 2011 @ 2:58 am - February 19, 2011

  22. Cas, no I didn’t ask for the hypothetical.
    - You introduced it “out of the blue” – see comment #8.
    - A couple of us pointed out how lame that was – see comments #9 and #12.
    - I suggested that, if you were going to push hypotheticals which is NOT something I respect or desire, you could at least push a better one – i.e., that your effort had been particularly weak even on its own terms. See comment #15.
    - You then offered, in alleged support of your hypothetical, a second example of *Democrat* officials abandoning their duties – see commment #17.

    Cas, I can’t tell if your misrepresentation – that I had “asked for the hypothetical” that you introduced at #8 – was intentional on your part, or merely the result of confusion about your own actions. But either way, I hope my above review sets you straight.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2011 @ 1:23 pm - February 19, 2011

  23. Wow… Even Joe Klein gets it:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/19/unions-had-better-get-used-to-concessions-say/

    Left-liberals are toast on this one. Toast.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2011 @ 1:29 pm - February 19, 2011

  24. Hi ILC,
    I am confused by your comment.
    I raised a GENERAL hypothetical at #8. The hypothetical you asked of me at #15: “Cas: If you must resort to hypotheticals, kindly construct a better one. What situation could possibly need legislators to flee, rather than to stay and vote, as the best response?”

    I take that as you asking me for a SPECIFIC hypothetical that would support my position. I suggested a hypothetical, at #17, with a minority *Republican* legislators in the minority position leaving the state rather than abide by an unfair redistricting. Not a very imaginative hypothetical, I agree.

    Then you write back, at #22, reiterating a point you made at #20: “- You then offered, in alleged support of your hypothetical, a second example of *Democrat* officials abandoning their duties.”

    Sorry, I am missing something in what you are saying.

    Comment by Cas — February 19, 2011 @ 2:29 pm - February 19, 2011

  25. Instead of running and hiding, maybe the Democrats should have proposed an alternative budget plan for closing the deficit without cutting the generous salaries and benefits of their unionized money-launderers.

    Comment by V the K — February 19, 2011 @ 2:43 pm - February 19, 2011

  26. I am confused by your comment.

    That’s clear.

    However, as I already referred to at comment #20, you had brought up this:

    the Texas situation a few years ago

    That situation was another instance of Democrat officials fleeing to another state, rather than perform their duties: http://articles.cnn.com/2003-05-13/politics/texas.legislature_1_house-speaker-tom-craddick-democratic-walkout-texas-house?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

    Not Republicans fleeing. So, to review:
    1) As V put it, your “defense of the Democrat legislators is a tu quoque based on a supposition of how Republicans might behave in a hypothetical scenario.”
    2) To buttress that hypothetical, i.e. to depict it as something with a reasonable possibility of happening, you brought up another real-life example of *Democrat* officials fleeing.

    In other words, you’re still not demonstrating much likelihood of Republican officials doing it. Or, as V said more succinctly: “Weak.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2011 @ 3:02 pm - February 19, 2011

  27. To be clear, I’m not saying there is no instance in the universe of any Republican ever having made the same mistake (or felony… as the case may be according to local law).

    Rather, I am pointing out that your hypothetical, even by the already-weak standards of hypotheticals, is thus far a very weak one.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 19, 2011 @ 3:07 pm - February 19, 2011

  28. Okey dokey

    Comment by Cas — February 19, 2011 @ 10:34 pm - February 19, 2011

  29. And she would call the protests by the Unions astroturf if they were done by Republicans.

    Comment by Andrew — February 20, 2011 @ 4:44 am - February 20, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.