Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Nancy Pelosi - Speaker?

The New York Times looks at some of the criticisms and praise for Nancy Pelosi. Now, keep in mind that the staff at the NYT is hoping that they will be writing Speaker Pelosi come January. That is why they let her get away with this whopper.
Asked why she makes such a popular Democratic bogyman, or bogywoman, Ms. Pelosi shrugged, smirked and, finally, smiled.

"I am an Italian-American Catholic grandmother," she said, "very traditional in terms of values."

She repeated this three times, as if to emphasize that her self-image was at odds with more common descriptors, like "San Francisco liberal."
Hmmm, any guesses what her traditional Catholic grandmother values lead her to believe on such issues as abortion or gay marriage?

And, if the media were just, this little comment would get as much publicity as the phoney story of George H.W. Bush purportedly not knowing how scanners on a cash register worked.
"I had a hamburger last night and it was my breakfast, lunch and dinner," she said last week. "And I had these strange things. I realized they were French fries." She made quick spiraling gestures with her fingers to show what they looked like.

It was apparent that she was not familiar with curly fries.
Ooh, crikey! How can the woman be third in line for the presidency if she is so out of touch with America that she has never seen curly fries before?

As Tom Elia points out, Pelosi is not the smoothest of speakers.
In the course of two interviews, Ms. Pelosi repeated herself frequently, even by the hyper-repetitious standards of politicians:

¶About how the Republican House leadership was presiding over a "culture of corruption."

¶About how Democrats were committed to fiscal responsibility.

¶About how Democrats would restore civility to the House.

¶About how "when Democrats win," President Bush will be a "lame duck," upon which she switches poultry metaphors and drops in the cautionary cliché about not counting chickens before they are hatched.

She repeated Jesse Jackson-like alliterative sound bites in halting un-Jackson-like cadences. Republicans, she said, "are engaging in deluge and desperation," while her Democratic caucus "is a great collection of idealism, intellect and" — she paused while trying to summon the third "i" — "integrity."
I especially like that canard about how the Democrats would restore civility to the House. Sure, they'll just be as civil as can be about Republicans and the President. As if. I challenge anyone to compare the statements that Democratic leaders make about President Bush and those he makes about them and to say that the Democrats are the exemplars of civility they claim to be.

If the Democrats did take the House, they most likely would have a very narrow majority and so would have to keep their members in line on every vote and demonize the GOP on every issue. Have we ever noticed a tendency in the past quarter century by either party? Or even before that? It's not a tea party, for gosh sake! If these politicians can't take political rhetoric then they can retire and go home. Politics has been vitriolic ever since the first parties formed back in the 1790s. Political rhetoric can be ugly now and it has always been thus.