Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    July 2024
    S M T W T F S
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Pelosi puff piece reveals danger of Dems

Posted by Richard on October 23, 2006

Thank goodness I didn’t watch 60 Minutes last night. I couldn’t have taken Leslie Stahl’s fawning interview with Nancy Pelosi. I’ve heard and read enough of it this morning to conclude that CBS should be charged with an "in kind" campaign contribution. All the emphasis on what a wonderful wife, mother, and grandmother Pelosi is ought to make feminists gag — but of course, they like her politics, so you won’t hear a peep of protest.

The questions weren’t just softballs — most of them were whiffle balls. Stahl sounded tough one time — when she challenged Pelosi on the civility issue, pointing out that Pelosi has used terms like "immoral," "corrupt," and "criminal enterprise" to refer to the congressional Republicans and has called President Bush practically every name in the book:

"It sounds personal," Stahl remarks.

"This isn’t personal," Pelosi says.

"He’s "incompetent", he’s…," Stahl continues.

"Well, I think he is," Pelosi states.

"Well, that’s personal," Stahl points out.

"Well, I’m sorry, that’s his problem," Pelosi replies.

"How does this raise the level of civility?" Stahl asks.

"Well, this is a – well – we’re in a political debate here. We didn’t come here to have a tea party together, and toss a coin to see who would win on an issue," Pelosi says. "I have very thick skin, I don’t care what they say about me."

Note: I heard the audio clip of this exchange, and Stahl sounded less tough than you’d think from reading it. I suppose her inability to suppress giggles — for instance, when referring to Bush as incompetent — had something to do with that.

Nevertheless, Pelosi comes off rather mean-spirited and hateful, doesn’t she? Well, 60 Minutes can’t have that — time for some "moral equivalence":

And she needs that thick skin. She’s being used for target practice.

GOP ads have labeled her "liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi." One Republican ad says "she’ll reward illegal aliens with welfare, food-stamps, and free education. How do we stop her?"

Republicans including the president go after her saying if she’s Speaker, it’ll mean a weaker military, pampering of terrorists, and higher taxes.

Sure, Pelosi calls her opponents criminals, bigots, morons, and incompetents, and says they’re corrupt and evil. But just look — they call her liberal and say she wants to raise taxes and give food stamps to illegals. Same thing, right? Both sides are doing it. They’re just debating the issues — whether the Dems would raise taxes on the one hand, and whether Republicans are the spawn of Satan on the other. No difference at all. Let’s just move on.

Let’s get really serious and talk about the war. Here comes the slow pitch right over the plate — Stahl noted that Pelosi wants to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq this year, and asked (emphasis added):

"Does that not open you up then to that charge of cutting and running? This is just what they’re saying," Stahl asks.

"The issue is them. The issue is the war they got us into," Pelosi replies. "If the president wants to say the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, he’s not right."

"Do you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the war on terror?" Stahl asks.

"No. The war on terror is the war in Afghanistan," Pelosi says.

Well. By my reckoning, that’s not a home run, it’s a foul ball. Pelosi succinctly articulated the mindset that makes her and her fellow anti-war Democrats so dangerous. They believe that if we just captured Osama and his buddies, we could declare victory, go home, and return to the way things were on September 10, 2001.

If they have their way, a lot more of us are going to die.

I suppose 60 Minutes would just characterize my statement as another example of name-calling and incivility.

Subscribe To Site:

4 Responses to “Pelosi puff piece reveals danger of Dems”

  1. VRB said

    Why would a feminist gag? Does one have to be anti-male, anti- marriage and anti-children to be a feminist?

  2. Anonymous said

    No, but feminists generally disapprove of this kind of “little miss homemaker” treatment, maintaining (usually correctly) that it’s condescending, that it belittles the woman’s seriousness as a leader and policy maker, and that no one does it to men.

  3. David Bryant said

    “Democrats” like Nancy Pelosi always make me wonder why America’s oldest surviving political party has drifted so far from its moorings. Perhaps the people who conflated the political philosophies of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson are to blame. I’ve been reading some of TJ’s stuff recently, and I think this quote would make good fodder for the Jefferson-Jackson day dinners all around the country. Anytime.

    In a conversation with Daniel Webster in 1824 Jefferson said, ””I feel much alarmed at the prospect of seeing General Jackson President. He is one of the most unfit men I know for such a place. He has had very little respect for laws or constitutions, and is, in fact, an able military chief. When I was President of the Senate he was a Senator; and he could never speak because of the rashness of his feelings. I have seen him attempt it repeatedly, and as often choke with rage. His passions are no doubt cooler now …, but he is a dangerous man.””

    This sheds some light, I think, on the differences between Jeffersonianism and Jacksonianism, when properly so called.

  4. VRB said

    You are little Miss Homemaker no matter what position you have, because there are very, very few Mr. Homemakers. The only thing power gives to a woman, besides personal fulfillment, is that she can make enough money to pay for a quailty nanny, daycare, school and house keeper. They’d never ask a man because he still isn’t expected to do any of those things.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.