« Some Free Advice for Kerry | Main | A Remake Worth Remaking »
Pelosi for V.P.?
Nancy Pelosi has been in the news the last few days for being the first politician to finally say what everyone else has been screaming for 3 years now--that Bush is entirely incompetent at running the country. One might think it wouldn't take so long for the opposition party to publicly condemn the idiocy coming out of the White House, but better late than never. A few choice quotes:
"The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader."
Asked specifically if she was calling Bush incompetent, Pelosi replied:
"I believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers."
This of course brought out the Republican attack dogs, including that pinnacle of responsibility, Tom DeLay:
Ah, yes. The 'ol 'your language is killing Americans' routine. A variation on the theme of any criticism of the leadership is tantamount to treason, or, questioning the president is unamerican. The Republican National Committee (RNC) even put out a statement saying that Pelosi and other Democrats were putting more blame for the deaths of U.S. soldiers on Bush than on the terrorists.
Well, you know what? They're right. She is saying precisely that. And how many terrorists have we caught? How many have we killed? Now compare that to the 700+ U.S. soldiers Bush has sent to slaughter.
Frankly, the RNC is really on a roll with accurate assessments like that. On Thursday they put up a new page on their website at GOP.com outlining how Nancy Pelosi is 'totally San Fran.' I suppose thats supposed to be demeaning. What they have, though, is a laundry list of great policy decisions. I had no idea that Pelosi was this progressive and reasonable. Here's the list:
-Pelosi Voted Against Persian Gulf War In 1991 And Liberation Of Iraq In 2002.
-Pelosi Questioned Readiness Of American Troops.
-Pelosi Prefers Increased Domestic Spending To Increased Defense Spending.
-Pelosi Doesn’t Consider War On Terror A Real War.
-Pelosi Voted Against Creating Department Of Homeland Security.
PELOSI FAVORS HIGHER TAXES AND BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING
-Pelosi Doesn’t Believe Tax Cuts Stimulate Economic Growth.
-Pelosi Voted Against Both 2001 And 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.
-Pelosi Voted Against Welfare Reform And Called It “War On The Poor.”
-Pelosi Voted For Clinton’s 1993 Tax Hike.
-Pelosi Voted At Least Four Times Against Balanced Budget Amendment.
SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL, OUT OF TOUCH WITH MAINSTREAM VALUES
-Pelosi Voted Against Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA).
-Pelosi Has Consistently Voted Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion.
-Pelosi Is Hostile To Gun Owners’ Rights.
-Pelosi Opposes Death Penalty.
-Pelosi Voted Against Banning Flag Burning.
Well, now. Seems to me that the only things objectionable in that list are the headings inaccurately characterizing her positions. Lets just take a look at a few of these positions, shall we?
---
-Pelosi Voted Against Persian Gulf War In 1991 And Liberation Of Iraq In 2002.
Smart move. The first Gulf War left 250,000 U.S. soldiers suffering from 'gulf war syndrome'--an illness the government refuses to recognize. And voting against the current war puts her as one of the few with actually reasonable foresight in the congress, as this war has turned out to be country's worst nightmare and mistake since Vietnam.
-Pelosi Questioned Readiness Of American Troops.
I would question the readiness of anyone heading off to fight an unecessecary war without adequate equipment like body armor. I might also wonder about the fitness of inactive reservists being called up to fight combat halfway across the world.
-Pelosi Prefers Increased Domestic Spending To Increased Defense Spending.
With the U.S. economy in the tank, a $200 billion+ war, and a $500 billion+ defense department (half all government spending), why would she prefer that?
-Pelosi Doesn’t Consider War On Terror A Real War.
Its not. There is no defined enemy. There is no way to 'win.' There is no way to end it. If a war is a period of conflict, that 'period' must have a way to END, or it cannot be a period.
-Pelosi Doesn’t Believe Tax Cuts Stimulate Economic Growth.
Record tax cuts under Bush have given us record job losses and the worst recession in 40 years. Apparently Pelosi is agreeing with Bush's own former treasury secretary, Paul O'Neil, who also warned Bush that his tax cuts wouldn't stimulate the economy.
-Pelosi Voted Against Both 2001 And 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.
In other words, she votes in what she believes in. True, thats a novel concept for a lot of members of congress.
-Pelosi Voted For Clinton’s 1993 Tax Hike.
She does believe in tax changes. Just not ones that dump all the nation's wealth into the hands of the few while destroying our economy in the process.
-Pelosi Voted Against Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Codification of discrimination into the law of the land and she didn't support it? Blasphemy! Traitor!
-Pelosi Has Consistently Voted Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion.
Oh, she supports a woman's right to make decisions about her own body?
-Pelosi Is Hostile To Gun Owners’ Rights.
Like the right to carry a concealed weapon? The right to shoot deer with an Uzi? The right to leave guns around so your 6-year old can shoot your 4-year old? Which one? They've gotta be specific with these charges.
-Pelosi Opposes Death Penalty.
Geez...she opposes guns and supports life? I'm really getting their point here...
-Pelosi Voted Against Banning Flag Burning.
And her view was upheld by the US Supreme Court in US v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, where they found desecration of the flag to be protected by the first ammendment.
---
Ok, but now lets look back at the RNC's summary characterizations:
PELOSI IS WRONG ON NATIONAL SECURITY
PELOSI FAVORS HIGHER TAXES AND BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING
SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL, OUT OF TOUCH WITH MAINSTREAM VALUES
She opposed the gulf war and thinks that evidence of widespread torture of innocent Iraqi's in Saddam's most infamous torture prison might suggest incompetence on Bush's part. She supported tax hikes under Clinton that resulted in the best economic boom in 60 years, but voted against Bush's tax cuts that produced record job losses and the worst budget deficit in history. And finally, she supports a woman's choice, thinks we ought to avoid electrocuting our citizens in jails (neither here or Iraq), and feels that discrimination against homosexuals shouldn't be enshrined into the defining document of this country.
Why, you might just call Ms. Pelosi a democrat.
So what do you say, Mr. Kerry? How about a woman and a democrat? One with guts to say what she thinks and brains to back it up?
Its imperative for Kerry to get somebody on the ticket who is going to pound on Bush day in and day out. He also needs someone who will convince the democrats of this country that their interests might actually be represented. Pelosi fits each of these a lot better than a moderate called Edwards, an inexperienced general named Clark, or an anti-choice republican going by McCain.
Most will suggest I'm silly and naive for thinking Kerry might pick someone with an actual point of view, but politics at his level clearly isn't about doing the right thing. Its about what the people want and how to move the polls. Pelosi could rally a huge portion of the public to get out and vote, and she won't stand for silly republican nonsense.
Kerry-Pelosi '04 gets my vote. If you agree, pass it on, and lets get this ball rolling.
Posted on May 22, 2004 02:13 PM
Comments
Well, Pelosi thinks this is "the worst economy in 50 years" and it's supposedly Bush's fault. I guess it must be a "feeling" or something with you guys; because the hard, absolute and beyond debate numbers say that A. the economic downturn began in March of 2000 (before Bush was even elected!) and B. the current prevailing key indicators, including job creation of 1.2 million new positions in just the last six months, PROVE Bush's economic policies are working and the economy is strong and growing. Oh, but what are the value of numbers compared to "feeeeeeelings!"
AND, unless you've received strategic force doctrine training (I have via the AUSA conferences over a five year period) you're not qualified to have an opinion on whether we should have gone to war in Iraq. By the way, UNMOVIC Chief Inspector Demetrius Perricos has done a dramatic about-face and reported this very week to the U.N. Security Council that Saddam was shipping out WMD right before the war and during; based on the evidence he's seen. YOUR biased mainstream media is lying through ommission of facts like these. Of course, what is doctrine or professional evidence compared with your "feeeeeelings."
Yeah, I guess letting hostile regimes shred the terms of cease fire agreements, letting them fire repeatedly at our aircraft (protecting people's from annihilation), and sponsoring terror groups that seek to kill Americans while we allow it, is just good foreign policy, huh?
Pathetic hippie, hate-filled ignorants...yes, like Pelosi and YOU; are dangerous to the security of our nation.
Posted by Bob on June 14, 2004 09:59 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.criticalviewer.com/mt-tb.cgi/54