Camp Pelosi: Nancy Lashes Out at the Antiwar Movement

The Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank on the only cure for Nancy Pelosi’s rictus “smile”:

“She entered the room beaming and, over the course of an hour, smiled no fewer than 31 times and got off at least 23 laughs. But her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic ‘base’ over her failure to end the war in Iraq.

“‘Look,’ she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. ‘I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things — Buddhas? I don’t know what they were — couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk.’

“Unsmilingly, she continued: ‘If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have ‘Impeach Bush’ across their chest, it’s the First Amendment.’

Poor people do indeed sleep in the streets of San Francisco, as anyone who has ever been to our downtown area will readily attest, and yet isn’t there something a little … scary about Pelosi’s Marie Antoinettish remark that seems to equate the homeless with rubbish that is rightfully swept away? It’s a sensitive subject in San Francisco, where compassionate liberalism — as opposed to Pelosi’s “liberalism” — is part of the City’s culture. 

I live in Nancy’s neighborhood, and we’ve bumped into each other, although not much. Having run against her (as the Republican nominee) in 1996, I had a bit of trouble getting her into a face-to-face: she refused to debate, and this imperious attitude evoked not a murmur of comment on the local political scene. I ran as the antiwar candidate, but since the war I was protesting back then was the Kosovo war, Bay Area liberals weren’t interested. Now, of course, there are people camped out on her lawn, trying to get an audience with Her Imperial(ist) Majesty, to no avail.

 Milbank continues:

“Though opposed to the war herself, Pelosi has for months been a target of an antiwar movement that believes she hasn’t done enough. Cindy Sheehan has announced a symbolic challenge to Pelosi in California’s 8th Congressional District. And the speaker is seething.

“‘We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow,’ Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their ‘passion,’ Pelosi called it ‘a waste of time’ for them to target Democrats. ‘They are advocates,’ she said. ‘We are leaders.'”

Well then why doesn’t she start leading? Instead, she’s following the advice of Democratic spin-doctors who would much rather have the war as an issue in the upcoming presidential election than make any “risky” political move to actually bring our troops home. “We don’t have the votes,” they whine, but they’re lying: if the House, where they have a majority, votes down war funding, then the money can’t be spent. Period. The Democratic leadership rules this course out altogether, because they claim they’re frightened to death of being blamed for the defeat of our forces. Who lost Iraq? is not a question they feel prepared to answer under those circumstances. 

Better Iraqis and Americans should continue to die than the Democrats should have to get up off their knees, and rise to the occasion like real leaders, instead of craven opportunists. Aside from which, their opportunism is seriously misplaced: over 70 percent of the American people have had it up to here with this rotten war.  

Why are those people camped out in La Pelosi’s meticulously-manicured yard? Well, maybe because of this.

Yes, Nancy, it’s the First Amendment, and I hope every homeless person in town scoots on over to your digs with an “Impeach Bush” sign on the back of his cardboard placard imploring “Will Work for an End to the War — but I’ll settle for a square meal.”  

I like Milbank’s take on it:

“It was a rather fierce response to the party’s liberal base, which frightens many a congressional Democrat. But it wasn’t out of character for the new speaker. Pelosi’s fixed and constant smile makes her appear as if she is cutting an ad for a whitening toothpaste. But when you listen to the words that come from her grinning maw, the smile seems more akin to that of a barracuda.”

He got that right.

  • Unmitigated Audacity

    “Better Iraqis and Americans should continue to die than the Democrats should have to get up off their knees, and rise to the occasion like real leaders, instead of craven opportunists.”
    Absolutely spot on. I worked hard to elect Dems in ’06 to end this hideous, insane war and foreign policy. I know from reading blogs and talk radio and just talking to people I know, that Dems and Indy’s who voted these spineless frigtards in are angry and depressed as hell over their total capitulation to Bush/Cheney on Iraq and all the other “Unity Executive” unconstitutional, fascistic crap they are pulling. Angry as hell, man.

  • Chris S

    Poor Pelosi. Maybe she could get a little privacy if she moved to Iraq? or Israel?

  • Jack

    It's easy to understand why Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party are paralyzed and afraid of taking action to promote peace. America would not be mired in Iraq today and would not be about to expand the war (and the evil-doing) into Iran and throughout the rest of the mideast without the behind-the-scenes maneuvering of the Israeli lobby. American foreign policy today is simply a proxy for Israeli policy combined with the profiteering of the oil industry. To keep the spotlight off the Israeli fascism against the Palestinians, Israel must create a more spectacular problem – VIOLA … "Islamo-fascism" (a war on Islam) was borne. America could not have invaded Iraq without the support of the both the Jewish Zionists and the Christian Zionists. The Israeli lobby is "in bed" with the American Republican Party. The Republican Party doesn't dare risk losing the "Jewish vote". Now what about Nancy Pelosi and the paralysis of the Democratic Party? It's clear why the Democratic Party continually fails to end the war on Iraq and fails to act to prevent a new war on Iran. The Israeli lobby is (also) "in bed" with the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party (just like the Republicans) won't do anything to risk losing the "Jewish vote". THIS EXPLANATION IS CLEAR ENOUGH FOR MOST 5TH-GRADERS TO UNDERSTAND IT… and just to reassure you that I'm not "anti-Jewish" I'll just add that I AM Jewish and I can see with crystal-clarity exactly what is going on. If you don't understand this, please go to the top of this paragraph and read it again, then raise your voice and take action to "wage peace". DO IT NOW, PLEASE…

    • the.truth.hurts

      Jack, I agree completely. And I’m jewish as well. And, while we’re commenting on the opposition of some of us American jews to the subversion of the US by Israel, it is prudent to ask a question about consequences, about “blowback” if you will. What is going to happen to the American jews when the ~285 million non-jews figure out that thousands of American soldiers and trillions (WITH A “T”) of American dollars have been spent to fight Israel’s wars for them? How will they feel when they add to that revelations of the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty? How will they feel when they find out about legions of Israeli intelligence agents roaming the pentagon, the foreign and domestic policy bureaucracy, the congress, and the rest of our country? (Pollard, Franklin, Rosen and Weissman, the “art students”, the Hoboken “moving company” spies who danced in celebration on 9/11?

      Those same evangelicals who in their mindless zealotry and ignorance are now such passionate supporters of Israel can turn on a dime, pull out their knives, and become ravening jew-haters, with only the smallest of steps from jew-hater to jew persecuter, making little distinction between the American jewish community and Israel. Finally, put this opportunity for an anti-jewish reaction against a backdrop of years of
      terror-threat hysteria and a savagely stressful economic downturn, and “Bingo” you have textbook conditions for a spasm of reactionary scapegoating and persecution.

      Is this paranoia? Only if what I’ve written above is fact free.

      My wife and I have left the US. Our departure was an accident of retirement, but accidental or not, I feel like a jew who got his family out of Germany in the early 30’s. Dodged a bullet, but with friends still in deadly peril.

    • richard vajs

      Jack,
      You are totally correct in my opinion. I’ve heard that as much as 50% of the Democrats’ contribution and as much as 25% of the Republicans’ contribution come from Jewish sources. Neither Party will jeopardize those funds; especially knowing that “their money” could not only go away but actually wind-up on the other Party’s doorstep. Money is called “the mother’s milk of politics”. When you add the swooning over Israel by the John Hagee crowd and the willingness of AIPAC to play hardball it is guaranteed that Israel will always come first in American foreign policy. Even if that policy is wrong for America. The antiwar people need to either put their money where their mouths are and match or better the Israel-First money or they need to be very clear that Israel-First policies are destroying this country. No beating around the bush, no hinting at “special interests”; just outright exposure of what Zionism is doing to America. Pony up, speak out or please accept the role of doormat that is assigned to cowards

      • Tim R.

        I wonder, do you get just as angry when the Muslim radicals, from other countries like Saudi Arabia, donate huge sums of money, millions and millions of dollars, to our nation’s most prestigious universities to gain influence over us?

        So if an someone supports Israel and donates money to an organization that supports Israel or to elected officals that share their beliefs, there is something corrupt about that? Just what is wrong with that? That is what factions do. And that is what they have always done. Why don’t you read Federalist Paper #10. Having many different factions is actually a good thing for a country.

        • masmanz

          Why would Muslim radicals donate money to the US universities? Do they ask us to attack this country or that? Or make us spend billions of dollars on useless wars? Thousands of our troops have been killed and injured by following the dictates of the lobby, now they want us to bomb Iran.

        • richard vajs

          Tim R,
          Yes there is something very corrupt about a system where AIPAC can successfully lobby this country into a pre-emptive war which kills hundreds of thousands and bankrupts our own country’s finances just so some “settlers” can steal land from the rightful owners. You may not see that. Would you see it if in your community, your local officials were bribed to allow outside real estate developers to condemn and seize YOUR property without compensation?
          Federalist Paper #10; my butt. Corruption and theft are corruption and theft, no matter if the majority want it or not.

        • Tim R.

          Richard vajs,

          So this is all about Israel and settlers? Its really that simple is it? Can you please expalin something to me? Between 1948 and 1967 the entire area known as the West Bank was controlled by Jordan, correct? And Gaza was controlled by Eygpt, correct? Why were the “Palestinians” not screaming for statehood during those years? How come palestinians were not shouting that the Jordanians and the Eygptions were stealing and illegally occupying their land? How come?

          Could it be, is it within the realm of possibility that the heart of the matter is not about land but about religion? The Arabs were not upset between 1948-1967 because the land was controlled by muslim countries but they just can’t stand the fact that the land is now in the hands of Jews. Isn’t that what its really all about? Religion? Not land.

      • Without commenting on your figures on Jewish funding of campaigns, the whole idea of restrictions on campaign cash is utterly ludicrous. The amounts being discussed (Hillary leading with $40 m or so per quarter) are trivial in the grand scheme of things, and can do far less to influence the election than the framing of the candidates and the terms of debate that occurs in the media (mainstream and such quasi-independent sources like Kos, Huffington, etc). The entire system is corrupted from top to bottom, there is absolutely no way in its current form it can be reformed, there is simply far too much to be gained or lost by far too many powerful people. Too many of us accept the current system as a given, or, even worse, want MORE government, of which the late great Friedrich Hayek said “The worst get on top”. Ron Paul’s insurgent 2008 campaign may be the very last chance we ordinary people have to effect meaningful change, after a Hillary or a (((shudder))) Giuliani win, there may be no means left to us.

  • Rian

    Remember that the first rule of politics is to stay in power. With that in place, of course it’s going to be left as a campaign issue; it’s the most effective tool in their arsenal. Ruthless, cold-hearted, and awful policy? Sure. But it might very well deliver the Democratic Party the Presidency, and all other goals are currently subordinated to that consideration.

    • Simon

      The first rule of politics is to get in power, the second rule is to stay in power. You are quite correct in the getting. Problem is, once they are there, they will be totally consumed with the staying and mid term elections will be only 2 years away and they won’t want to offend red neck America or be accused of being weak on defence, now will they? So they will only continue doing what they have been doing – pandering to the right wing. They may well know what is the right thing to do, but they are not going to ever do it, or the great ignorant mass of America will toss them out of power.

      Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

      • Marycatherine Barton

        Do you really think that the great majority of the American people are the ignorant mass, and that if the Democrats and other in Congress voted to end the war by no longer funding anything but the cost of bringing the troops home, these particular legislators would not be reelected? I disagree.

        • Craig

          Yes, the great majority of the American people are ignorant, stupid, incapable of rational thinking, short-sighted. Open your eyes.

  • akasi

    Pelosi does not for a moment even consider that if the U.S. ‘loses’ the war, it will liberate Iraq from a cruel and inhuman occupation that has directly or indirectly caused the death of over a million Iraqis. Liberating Iraq from Saddam was a signal achievement soon after which the American military could have left Iraq rather than continue to rule over that hapless country.

    Iraq is the oldest civilization and one of the most sophisticated cultures on earth and I have no doubt that its people left alone could get their acts together and start to rebuild. What does the U.S. government hope to achieve there by staying? More unnecessary Iraqi and American deaths?

    Pelosi is showing her deep-seated racism if she sees the immediate withdrawal of the American military as a ‘defeat’ for the U.S. rather than leaving the Iraqis to decide their own destiny and respecting their sovereignty, which is what any truly democratic, freedom-loving leader should consider a success.

  • In fairness, successfully opposing Bush over Iraq probably is beyond the Democrats – the Congressional arithmetic doesn’t work and the American people seem collectively not to have sufficient basic decency to make opposition to the Iraq obscenity work as it should.

    Whether it’s reasonable to expect the possibly quixotic devotion to principle required for a full-blooded campaign to impeach Bush from Democrat politicians is another question.

    However, what really condemned Pelosi beyond any hope for redemption was her active intervention against attempts to make an attack on Iran harder for the Bush regime.

    • Tim R.

      If the Democrats truly want to end the war in Iraq they should have the guts to vote for it. The House of Representatives has the “power of the purse.” Let the democrat majority vote to cut off all funding. Even if they don’t have the votes in the Senate and Bush vetoes it. At least let them stand up for what they believe in rather than keep running their mouth off and talking. They are hypocrites.

      • Colonel_Khadafis_Fried_Chadian

        For once i agree with Tim. But why would YOU want to pull out?

  • Bob

    Old Bug Eyed Pelosi has no interest in ending the war. Democrap or Replithug, they’re just different wings of the same bird of prey.

    • Craig

      Yep. They’re the left and right wings of a vulture.

  • US Greens, Libertarians, and others, where are you? America more than ever needs a real third party choice. The first two are pretty much the same anymore.

    Unfortunately your political system is rotten from the core. Until you have real electoral reform you are stuck with dumb and dumber. There is little democracy left when only those with millions of dollars of pander money can stand a chance of winning.

    Strangle your runaway election beast by capping the amount any candidate can spend at $150,000 – twice or so the current Canadian limit. That instantly levels the playing field and takes special interest money right out of the equation.

    I doubt your founding fathers would be very happy with the way things have turned out.

    • Chris S

      The Greens? Aren’t they busy bickering amongst themselves and sabotaging each other in their bureaucratic battles on the Internets? Methinks the people in the US that are paying attention already have their choice candidate locked and loaded.

      • joebhed

        Umm, this is the internets.
        And, we are here.
        As for the sabotaging, et tu Brutus.
        A classic DLC tactic is to halt the debate by a marginalizing slogan – you know, like they’re locked and loaded, so shut the f up.
        For alll of you, take note.
        These are issues. Peace now. Not after the Dems are in control – as if that would happen.
        You folks are about candidates and parties.
        “The people in the US already have their candidates”
        Well, we are the people in the US.
        We are not locked and loaded, except for continuing the fight until things change.
        Don’t stoop to your marginalizing rhetoric.
        Defend the policy.
        Defend the action.
        News flash.
        We are here. To stay.

        • lawlgreens

          Maybe when the Greens stop crawling over each other and figure out what they are about I’ll start paying more attention to them.

  • Tony

    To lead is to motivate and to inspire. Women in politics don’t lead, they lecture, so its pointless hoping for leadership from Pelosi. That’s what also bothers me about Hillary who exhibits the same traits as Pelosi. I can think of many women in history who reached supreme political or monarchical positons who ruled, but none who led.

    • Simon

      Don’t be an idiot. Gender has nothing to do with it. The vast majority of male heads of government don’t lead either. That is the problem today – here we are in the midst of numerous crisis – environmental, climate, energy (No, I didn’t forget terrorism, it is the same minor annoyance it has always been, bar a single, spectacularly successful, attack) – and their are very few people willing to stand up and tell the truth and suggest a path to take.

  • Simon

    I’m not sure who I hate more now, Repbublicans or Democrats. You expect Republicans to be corrupt, to lie and cheat and steal, to do anything to get and hold on to power so that they can feather their nests and the nests of their cronies with tax payers money. You expect them to make the wrong decision about everything as long as it benefits the already very rich. You expect them to try to shred the constitution and work against human rights, civil rights, everything that is truly moral and eithical.

    On the other hand, you expect the very opposite of all of that from Democrats. You expect them to do what is right for the nation, to do what benefits the majority of Americans. You expect them to defend the constitution and the rights of the people.

    To see them act with such craven cowardice turns the stomach. It is all political now for them. They will not do what is right – end the war, impeach Bush and overturn every one the fascistic policies he has implemented in the last 7 years – because they are scared the Republicans will call them names. (Unfortunately they are correct and the fault lies with the American people who are so grossly ignorant of everything that they believe the most ridiculous lies and disbelieve the most obvious truths) The Democrats are not leading, they are hoping to win power by default if the American people end up hating Republicans even more than them.

    To not impeach Bush and to not end this illegal and immoral war are treasonous acts warranting impeachment. The majority of congressman and senators should be impeached for treason.

    America is finished. Is has turned out to be exactly what the authors of the constitution were trying most to prevent. Let us just hope is shrivels and dies quitely without taking any more of the world with it.

    I look to Europe and Canada and a few other countries now to set an example and save civilization. American’s are too selfish and greedy and stupidfor the job.

    • Tim R.

      Wow, Simon, talk about hyperbole. On what grounds should we impeach the President and all of Congress? I have news for you, the Constitution allows for impeachement only for “high crimes and misdemeanors” and disagreeing with you is not a high crime.

      So you think America is finished and the whole Congress is treasonous? Okay, when are you moving to Canada? I’d like to wish you well on your move.

      • Colonel_Khadafis_Fried_Chadian

        No but lying about something as serious as war should be.
        When are you moving to the front?

  • Jim Bradach

    Is the speaker nuts? If she riles folks much more she is on the street!

  • EC

    One marvels at the arrogance and detachment from reality of these people. In NP’s opinion anyone who rejects big government policy is an ignorant vagrant of some sort. Well she and her bedpersons in congress are due for a wake-up call come 2008. Paraphrase: “you can piss off most of the people most of the time but you cannot piss all of them off all of the time”… To revive an old slogan: “Power to the People!”

  • John

    To say the Democrats cannot get the troops home because the Republicans are blocking them is just an outright lie. Democrats can defund the war and if that does not work they can impeach Bush. But Nancy has rewritten The Constitution by saying impeachment is off the table. As long as there is a Constitution impeachment is never off the table.

    The only answer is to vote for Ron Paul. Both The Democrats and Republicans are controlled by the same interest groups and that is why there is no difference between the parties. Democrats and Independents who live in states where you can only vote in the primary of the party in which you are registered must change their party now so that they can vote in the primaries for Ron Paul. It’s also time to gp to his web site and donate as much as you can.

  • mike mann

    Pelosi and Rodham are 2 of a kind. Pelosi is the biggest liar in Congress tied with the GOP criminal war monger all tied to one big AIPAC and taking millions under the table to keep the war going.All this crapola about her being the 1st female Speaker was such a joke just like this talk of Rodham being the 1st prez. They all sell out once you give them your vote and they win. Pelosi was gonna drain the swamp and then held a pool party for her silver spoon lying war mongering hero Bush and done nothing since except provide lip service.
    Murtha is the only one who is legit and who got it all for the Democrackheads as the GOPerverts have done nothing but funnel trillions of tax dollars to their Bush neoheb masters continuing to make a worse catastrophe than the world has ever seen.
    Rodhham is not the answer. She is all up the azz of AIPAC like Pelosi and all the GOPervs who are too busy wasting trillions killing millions and going after young pages or strangers in airport mens rooms taking kickbacks to fix anything.
    Bill Clinton is not Hillary Rodham and besides he has 50 million in the bank and a sell out now anyway.
    Only the good ones like Ron Paul can fix it all or Ralph Nader who was used by Bush criminals in 2000.
    America is phucked anyway you look at it.

  • Bob

    Pelosi is a disgrace! While I long ago gave up voting (I refuse to give credence to the imperial federal scam) the only way to beat these rats at their own game is to challenge them in their primaries. It can only work once, because if it fails they’ll fix it so it can’t ever happen again. But in this upcoming election all the “leaders” in the d & r parties need primary challengers. I believe if Sheehan runs, either in the primary or the GE, she’ll win either way. Lots of antiwar internet money will do it. The dems are not telling the truth. They can stop this war in no more that three months. They need to listen to Kucinich and Gravel on how to do it. But, of course, Ron Paul is the only truly logical mind in the race.

  • Big M

    With respect to everybody in DC, as well as the people that pull their strings, an old saying comes to mind here. It ends with “let God sort them out.”

  • Richard

    Simon says (er, said):

    “You expect Republicans to be corrupt, to lie and cheat and steal, to do anything to get and hold on to power…you expect (Democrats) to do what is right for the nation, to do what benefits the majority of Americans. You expect them to defend the constitution and the rights of the people.”

    Hmm, funny, I had the exact opposite expectations.

    Well, I guess we’re both right (you about Republicans and me about Democrats) and wrong (vice-versa).

  • badri

    ..I hope every homeless person in town scoots on over to your digs with an “Impeach Bush” sign on the back of his cardboard placard imploring “Will Work for an End to the War — but I’ll settle for a square meal.” ..

    i would happily join them !
    any homeless activists with imagination and sense of humor ??

  • donilo

    Whatever events might have happened in Nancy Pelosi’s past political career, she has shown her true colors in two telling ways:

    1) She has gone the route of “finessing” the battle against war in Iraq. She has “finessed” it to its knees, and now is kicking it.

    2) Dana Milbank’s on-target statement says it all: “Poor people do indeed sleep in the streets of San Francisco, as anyone who has ever been to our downtown area will readily attest, and yet isn’t there something a little … scary about Pelosi’s Marie Antoinettish remark that seems to equate the homeless with rubbish that is rightfully swept away?”

    Her imperious attitude is then reflected in her wish that protesters would be “swept off the streets” as well. Well she’s got just the administration in the White House that would be all too pleased to accommodate her.

    With both the homeless and the protesters, her attitude begins to fringe on the classification of “sociopath.” A sociopath dehumanizes others so as to be able to cut off any feelings of concern about what might happen to them, or for what the sociopath herself might do to them. Depersonalization is a very telling quality of sociopathology. I’m not even sure that she would be an improvement if both Bush and Cheney were impeached (a moot point, since she has been a roadblock for that process as well).

    This is a woman who needs to be replaced. Emphatically!

    She is a disgrace to our political system and to humanity!

    donilo

    P.S. Support Cindy Sheehan!

  • Dianne C. Foster

    Anybody see Dana Milbank, Pelosi’s critic, in a three-way (not that kind!) with Pat Buchanan and a woman editor from Salon – on Dan Whats-his-Name’s show on MSNBC?

    Milbank and Buchanan both agreed that Jimmy Carter has made a “fool” of himself criticizing President Bush on the war. They also discounted the very same critique coming from a Republican, the late Jerry Ford, who recorded his disgust over the war and Bush while months from his death in his 90’s. His remarks were discounted because of his age and the implication that he was just senile and sick, and anyone who showed them was exploiting him.

    So there you have it – Milbank’s bias. Oh please, let’s run down Pelosi because after all she is the most powerful woman in America – even more so than Hillary, if you can believe that.

    It is very important to portray her as autocratic, while ignoring the fact that she did not vote for the Iraq War resolution and Hillary did.

    • Alpowolf

      If Pelosi is indeed the “most powerful woman in America”, then yes, I’m going to “run her down” for failing to use her power to end the immoral enterprise that is the Iraq occupation. To she whom much is given, much is expected.

      If her only concern is clinging to power then I have a problem with that, and her being a woman will not exempt her from that. She volunteered for this position; nay, she insisted that she was the one person best suited to fill it. I say to any politician: if you don’t like being held to this standard, find another job.

    • donilo

      Ms. Foster,

      “So there you have it – Milbank’s bias. Oh please, let’s run down Pelosi because after all she is the most powerful woman in America – even more so than Hillary, if you can believe that.”

      I don’t quibble with you at all about Milbank’s bias, and I’m sure I disagree with more of his views than agree. But the point here is that Nancy Pelosi’s OWN WORDS have revealed her own values.

      ‘If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have ‘Impeach Bush’ across their chest, it’s the First Amendment.’

      I can understand anger and frustration when faced with constant pressure, and also words which may be spoken from that context as being “unfortunate.” At the same time, I understand that words spoken at these times reveal more deeply-held values and beliefs than might otherwise be heard. Pelosi’s words fully reveal a “we vs. them” attitude in relation to the public. And the “them” are placed under the wheels of an authoritative system in order to repress them.

      J.R.’s quote in a following post here provides a clear context for both Pelosi’s attitude and her actions as Speaker of the House. :

      “at least 85% of those seated by “both” parties — or, as Gore Vidal puts it, the one party, “the Property Party” — in the sinkhole from which these non-reprentative corprocrats wage war against the citizenry of the US.”

      Now if you want a woman in a position of power (which is something I fully ascribe to) I offer you Cindy Sheehan, who will run against Nancy Pelosi next time.

      At the end of the day it’s values that mean something, not gender, race, age, creed, etc.

      regards,
      doug lowe

  • masmanz

    Anyone who was expecting that Democrats will do better than the Republicans and bring the troops home has been proven wrong. Nobody can bite the hands that feed them. The poor folks have to raise so much money to win an election, and soon after winning it they have to raise money again for the next one. Plus they have to face the media controlled by you know who. Can we all donate to Ron Paul’s campaign? — he is our only hope.

  • The general public must also share some of the blame for this sorry political mess. As others have pointed out on antiwar.com (sorry–don’t have the reference handy) U.S. opposition to the war is broad, but not necessarily deep. Public opinion could easily turn against the Democrats if they are seen as the party that “lost” Iraq.

    That doesn’t excuse Dems’ cowardice in any way. But it does at least partly explain it.

  • J.R.

    Pelosi is an American aristrocrat, not a democrat small d, and as such she’s pretty much despised by those registered Dems who are not shills for the Democratic Leadership Council (the re-baptized Democrats for Nixon). The utter rotten arrogance of “THEY are advocates, WE are leaders” — this is the belief of at least 85% of those seated by “both” parties — or, as Gore Vidal puts it, the one party, “the Property Party” — in the sinkhole from which these non-reprentative corprocrats wage war against the citizenry of the US.

  • morton

    What really irritates me is that I have given some money to the democrats including the congressional fundraisers. Now when I receive a solicitation my response is you are no better than the republicans and don't bother calling me again. All the soldiers and others dying for what. I recently spoke with a soldier who was being sent back for a second tour. His comment was "they all hate us." What is there to like about us? We destroyed their country, killed their citizens and no end in sight. The democrats could have not done any worse when they chose Pelosi and Reid to lead the congress.

  • Bert

    I think it was all settled when Nancy said “Impeachment is off the table”, and that’s where she’d like to see it stay, off
    the table, it’s just those pesky citizen people that keep
    putting down a fresh copy every time she turns around. Ah,
    the slings and arrows of representative government, where
    you don’t get to tell people what to think, and there’s that
    voting crap, and and and…it’s all just a Big Pain In The
    Ass, and gets in the way of your portfolio…that IS what
    Congress is about anymore, right? Enhancing people’s stock
    portfolios? Is that the REAL ‘healthscare’ story?

    But, one thing to remember in all of this geopolitical,
    socio-economic, redacted, vetted, pre-chewed, previewed
    sunshine story is that there is NO such thing as an
    ‘honest politician’. I mean, what would have come of the
    Clinton affair if he’d just walked up to a microphone, and
    said, ‘yeah, I did it, and I’d do it again in a hot second, any questions’, and turned around and walked off? Could they have
    impeached him after that? It was all just one big ‘gotcha’ game.

    Bottom line, Washington has become the Mother Of All Bulls**t Factories, and it’s no real wonder they can’t well do simple
    stuff like balance the budget. Reform’s in order, but WILL
    they decide to do it? Why does it have to be ‘catch me if you can’, year after year after year?

    http://www.impeachbush.org

  • aeskylos

    Pelosi is the archtypical “Liberal” that idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter like to create out of straw. Now here is that rich nasty Liberal King Kong in all its ugliness, shaking off fiction and nudging reality. How the hell did something like Pelosi get into the party of the poor and middle class working people? She belongs right there to sitteth at the right hand of GW and please pass the bombs. Thank God or somebody that Cindy Sheehan is running against Pelosi.

  • Ish

    Nancy Palosi and George Bush both report to

    same master, Israel lobby. Unless our polticians can stand up to Israel lobby, it won’t matter whom we elect.

    One day Americans will wake up, it will be bloody and tragic.

  • Tim R.

    Yes, the Israel lobby controls all of society. They basically have secret meetings where they decide who will be elected to Congress and who will be elected President. When the President or Congress is in office they basically just tell them what to do and they are puppets. They control the media, movies, TV, books, newspapers, I even think they control this website. Oh yes, so there is no stoping them folks, we might as well just give up.

  • Brett Celinski

    Tim, please don’t try to do the Al Sharpton thing and insinuate that to be against AIPAC is to secretly hate the Jews. I don’t like ad hominem, but it’s really stomach turning.

    Seriously, neoconservatives have pretty much outdone the liberals in their identity politics crusading and race/religion baiting these days. Reveals their leftist roots all too entirely.

  • Michael Savage has it right. Liberal is a social disease.., and some of you sick others sicker. How is it you geniouses never asked about the Iraquis paying for the war’
    As wew getpoorer they get richer. The president i right it not addressing the issue. He at least is making a buck with his OIl holdings. What are you poor fools getting. So it looks like you can fools most of the people all of the time.