Google+

Tags: Nancy Pelosi

Does an Image of Pelosi Twerking Help the Right in Any Way?



Text  



From the Tuesday Morning Jolt:

Does This Image Move the Ball in the Right Direction?

Over at Breitbart.com, they’re launching a new California-focused site, and they’ve chosen to promote the site with some graphic posters in the Los Angeles area. Some are rather funny (depicting Piers Morgan as an illegal immigrant jumping a fence), but one Photoshops Nancy Pelosi’s head onto Miley Cyrus’s body in her infamous “Twerking” pose another depicts Mark Zuckerberg with fake breasts. (You can find the entire graphic image at the link above.) The lefties are furious, and there is some rumbling in some conservative quarters that the whole thing is too tasteless to be worthwhile.

I’m sure one justification will be, “Look, you have to do something shocking to get people’s attention!” That’s true, but at some point the shocking image defines the institution and sets the expectation for the publication. What is it that the publication really wants to say? Ultimately, our objection to Pelosi, Jerry Brown, Zuckerberg, etc., is with their ideas, philosophies and policies, not how they look, right? If the illustration related to some sort of article about them, or argument relating to them — “Read our expose on how Nancy Pelosi is twerking hard for wealthy Leftist special interests!” — it would be much easier to justify. But as is, the image just says, “Hey, haven’t we made these people look silly!”

I presume what Breitbart California wants to do is bring news to people’s attention that they wouldn’t otherwise see, because other California news sources are too biased and cozy with the Democratic political establishment to report inconvenient stories. Ultimately, if your aim is to bring people the truth, I’m not so sure that an image that is false — i.e., Nancy Pelosi has never twerked like Miley Cyrus — er, we hope — reinforces the message that “you need to come here to get the real story.”

Some might argue an extremely sexual image of a woman in the political world is already cliché. Spy magazine depicted Hillary Clinton as a dominatrix in 1993, and Salon depicted Sarah Palin as a dominatrix in 2008.

The second justification for the Pelosi image will be, “The Left does it too!” And indeed they do. But when do efforts to expose the Left’s double standard reach the point where the Right doesn’t have a standard?

At some point we’re going to have to decide what we want: a political culture in which Sarah Palin, or, say, S. E. Cupp, etc. can be depicted in sexist, humiliating, and derogatory ways, as well as Nancy Pelosi and Hillary and anyone else, or one in which that’s considered out of bounds. We can’t say it’s only wrong when they do it.

I know, I know, I’m a stodgy old-school traditionalist who doesn’t understand how to fight the Left with its own tools and expose their hypocrisy and double standards, and I’m a dry, boring inside-the-Beltway insider…

Anyway, now it’s turned into one of the Left’s standard “all Republican officeholders must be held accountable for something a non-elected conservative has said” routines, like we’ve seen with Rush Limbaugh, Ted Nugent, and others:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, called on Republicans to press Breitbart News to remove the artwork — one of several suggestive images on the website promoting the new California site.

The image of Pelosi, beneath one of California Gov. Jerry Brown’s face photo-shopped onto a flexing body builder, includes the sub-head: “Because you can’t make this s— up.”

“To say the least, the Breitbart News ad is foul, offensive and disrespectful to all women. It is a disgusting new low and would be reprehensible against any woman — regardless of party,” Wasserman Schultz wrote. “If GOP leaders are serious about their rebrand, then both their elected and party leadership should condemn this outrageous behavior; call on Breitbart News to immediately remove the ad, and not continue to use this website as a forum for their views.”

In a tweet linking to her statement, Wasserman Schultz called the photo-shopped image of Pelosi “misogynistic.”

Again . . . was the image worth it? Does it help us?

Tags: Nancy Pelosi , Progressivism

Sour Shrimp! FBI Arrests Longtime San Francisco Pol



Text  



California State Senator Leland Yee, a Democrat representing San Francisco, was arrested Wednesday by the Justice Department in an apparent sting that involves a famous Chinatown criminal, local media report.

Yee and Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow were arrested Wednesday, in an operation that has the Federal Bureau of Investigation serving search warrants in Bay Area locations including a block of million-dollar-homes in San Mateo and the Chinatown headquarters of the Ghee Kung Tong Freemasons, according to KGO’s Vic Lee. KCRA reports that Yee’s Sacramento state capitol office has also been raided.

Chow was a snitch in the 2002 federal case against gangster Peter Chong, says a five-byline story in the San Jose Mercury News. First convicted of robbery in 1978, convicted of racketeering in 1995, Chow justified his testimony as payback against Chong in a 2011 interview with SF Weekly’s Mary Spicuzza. He got time knocked off his 24-year sentence and has been out of prison since 2007.

The Merc gets a no comment from Democratic State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg.

Yee has been running for California secretary of state in a field sporting two other Democrats, one Republican, and one former Republican.

Yee has been a player in San Francisco politics since the halcyon days of Willie Brown’s mayoral administration. He was elected to the city by the bay’s board of supervisors in 1997 and has moved more or less steadily left through a 12-year career as a state senator.

San Francisco’s Democratic establishment includes Senator Dianne Feinstein along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Yee’s press page and Twitter feed are silent on the charges. Yee’s press secretary did not return National Review’s request for comment.

Yee is the third Democrat in the California state senate facing criminal charges. The other two are in Los Angeles County. Rod Wright of Inglewood is taking a leave of absence after being convicted of perjury and voter fraud related to charges that he lied about his residence when running for office in 2008. Monetebello’s Ron Calderon is also on leave while fighting 24 felony counts related to bribery in exchange for steering legislation.

The Democratic Party has 28 out of 40 seats in the state senate. Wright’s and Calderon’s absences have already left the Democrats without the two-thirds supermajority they often claim to need, presumably so they can stand up to Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, the Democratic-controlled State Assembly, and the Democrats who hold all statewide elected offices.

Tags: Nancy Pelosi

Democrats Attacked Republicans for Saying What the CBO Says Today



Text  



KABOOM:

A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office says that the Affordable Care Act will result in more than 2 million fewer full-time workers in the next several years, providing Republican opponents of the law a powerful political weapon leading up to this year’s midterm elections.

The law is also expected to have a significant effect on hours worked, the nonpartisan budget office said in a regular update to its budget projections released Tuesday. With the expansion of insurance coverage, more workers will choose not to work and others will choose to work fewer hours than they might have otherwise, it said. The decline in hours worked will translate into a loss of the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time positions by 2024, the budget office said.

You remember the sales pitch, right?

“It will create 4 million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately,” Pelosi promised.

Also remember the pledge about how Obamacare would help the government save money? DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, last year:

The Affordable Care Act, according to the CBO analysis, the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan entity, has said, has calculated it will bring the deficit down. . . . There’s a lot of garbage out there about what the Affordable Care Act does. . . . The Tea Party latched onto opposition to the Affordable Care Act with all their might, and the truth hasn’t really mattered that much, while people like me endeavor to go out, like I’m doing right now, and educate people on what it does and what it doesn’t do.

Yeah, not so much, according to that same CBO she cited:

It also creates a major issue for the president, who has repeatedly said the ACA will be revenue neutral. Instead, the CBO projects that subsidies will account for increasing chunks of deficit spending, starting at $20 billion this year and steadily increasing to $159 billion in 2024, for a collective deficit of just under $1.2 trillion. The cumulative deficit from the ACA for the next decade could reach $1.35 trillion.

UPDATE: A reader reminds me of Obama’s pledge that “health care reform will not add one dime to our deficit.”

FACT CHECK: True. Obamacare doesn’t add “one dime” to the deficit, it adds trillions and trillions of dimes.

Tags: Nancy Pelosi , Debbie Wasserman Schultz , CBO , Obamacare

Democrats Can Save Their Policy, or Save Their Party. But Not Both.



Text  



From the Thursday edition of the Morning Jolt:

The Upton Plan Will Never Get Enacted, but It’s Beautiful Anyway

We don’t know precisely how the rest of this month will play out. But we know it will include an excruciating amount of political pain for President Obama and Congressional Democrats.

First, understand what we’re talking about when we discuss the Upton plan. Erick Erickson worries that a bill offered by Representative Fred Upton (R., Mich.) represents a trap for Republicans and opponents of Obamacare. He concludes, “the Republicans should not be helping Democrats with their re-election plans, which is all [they] are doing with Upton/Landrieu.”

The concern has some validity, as is Ben Howe’s worry that passage any bipartisan bill would transform Obamacare into a disaster enacted by Democrats to a only slightly less bad disaster enacted by both parties. But the Upton and Landrieu proposals do a heck of a lot more than just help Democrats insist they’re trying to do something to help those losing their plans.

Jeffrey Anderson:

Moreover — and important — the Upton bill would not help fix Obamacare. To the contrary, if it were to become law, it would badly undermine Obamacare’s exchanges, which would then be drained of millions of (previously insured and hence generally healthier) people whom Obama wanted to compel to buy exchange-based plans by banning their preferred plans. In short, Upton would hurt Obamacare, not fix it — which is why Obama opposes it.

James Capretta, a.k.a. “the health-care guy” at Heritage, AEI, and most other conservative organizations:

The defenders of Obamacare know full well that the Upton legislation represents a serious threat to the viability of the law. It would provide a lifeline for a viable insurance market outside of Obamacare’s rules and suffocating structure. Millions of Americans would flock to a revitalized insurance marketplace that offered lower premium products with better coverage. The end result would be one more step toward fully reversing the catastrophic mistake of Obamacare.

Who else just called the Upton bill as a tool to “subvert” Obamacare? David Axelrod.

Put another way, if the Upton bill’s primary impact really was just to provide cover for Democrats, why would Obama and his closest allies be fighting it tooth and nail? Why are they arm-twisting their own members to not vote for something that could provide them some political cover?

House Democratic leaders are doubling down in their opposition to GOP legislation that would allow Americans to keep their healthcare plans, even as the party is taking a political drubbing over the contentious issue.

Think about it. Nancy Pelosi & Company are insisting to their rank-and-file — approaching reelection less than twelve months from now — that stopping the Upton bill is worth taking a beating in the polls and coverage right now. The only way this stance makes sense is if the Upton bill represents a metaphorical bullet to the gut of Obamacare. It may not kill it immediately, but it will kill it eventually.

With one simple bill, designed to honor a promise the president repeated for five years, Fred Upton and his allies have built a nice little Trojan horse that implodes Obamacare within a year or two.

Right now, the congressman is now competing for the title of your favorite member of the Upton family against his perennial favorite niece.

You’ll always be special to us, Kate.

The House is going to take up the Upton bill. It’s going to pass. It’s going to pass with just about every Republican vote, and in all likelihood, a heck of a lot of Democratic votes.

Then it goes to the Senate, where three things can happen.

First, Harry Reid could treat it the way he treats most bills that pass the House, by refusing to bring it to the floor for a vote.

You’re already smiling, aren’t you? You’re already picturing the ad:

“A bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives passed the Keep Your Plan Bill. But Harry Reid is playing politics, not even allowing the Senate to vote on it.”

Ouch. Every Senate Democrat will be asked, on the record, if they agree with Reid’s decision. They’ll have to denounce him. The infighting and recriminations will be delicious.

The second possibility is that Harry Reid allows the bill to go to the floor, and the Senate rejects it.

Picture the ad, coming from the NRSC and various conservative groups.

“A bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives passed the Keep Your Plan Bill. But after voting for the Obamacare bill that canceled your health insurance, [insert Democratic incumbent here] voted NO — leaving you and your family without insurance.”

Brutal, just brutal. Under that scenario, the 2014 midterms turn into a Democratic bloodbath that makes the 2010 midterms look like the good old days.

Then there’s the third possibility . . . the Senate passes it . . . and it goes before Obama.

And then Obama can either sign the metaphorical gut-shot into law, or he can veto it.

He’s not going to sign it. Instead President Obama will provide the most excruciatingly painful veto in recent memory, as he becomes the president who assured the American people dozens of times they could keep their plan, broke his promise, and then shot down the bipartisan legislation to keep his promise after he broke it. You think his approval rating is low now? He’ll make Bush’s second term look like a joyous series of unhindered triumphs.

Nobody knows what Democrats are going to do. Because they themselves don’t know what they’re going to do:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday will convene a special meeting of the Senate Democratic caucus and senior White Officials to discuss the troubled rollout of ObamaCare.

Reid on Wednesday told reporters he would not answer questions about the hundreds of thousands of insurance policy cancellations or other issues until he has further discussions with the White House.

Very soon, the question is going to be put before Obama, Reid, and the rest: Save the policy or save the party. Pick one.

Tags: Fred Upton , Obamacare , Harry Reid , Nancy Pelosi , Barack Obama , David Axelrod

The First Four Obamacare Train Wrecks… With Many More to Come



Text  



From the Tuesday edition of the Morning Jolt:

The First Four Obamacare Train Wrecks… With Many More to Come

Look, Democrats. You fouled up on Obamacare. You fouled up big time, and time is running out to mitigate the damage.

You said you had to pass the bill in order to see what’s in it. Apparently it was like the Ark of the Covenant.

Yes, this is a train wreck. It’s a train wreck upon another train wreck, upon another train wreck… it’s train wrecks all the way down.

For starters, it’s a fragmentation grenade to the full-time job market. CNBC:

With open enrollment for Obamacare about to begin, small- and medium-sized businesses are not hiring because of uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the law, the CEO of nation’s fifth-largest staffing company said on Monday.

“Companies are really not interested in hiring full-time people. That’s really the issue with Obamacare,” Express Employment Professionals boss Bob Funk told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Monday.

Funk, a former chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve, admitted that this trend is a “boon” for his business, but “not healthy for the country as a whole.”

Secondly, the Wall Street Journal reports that the software doesn’t work. These geniuses have spent oodles of taxpayer money encouraging people to sign up for the exchanges, only to find out the software to run the exchanges isn’t working:

Less than two weeks before the launch of insurance marketplaces created by the federal health overhaul, the government’s software can’t reliably determine how much people need to pay for coverage, according to insurance executives and people familiar with the program.

Government officials and insurers were scrambling to iron out the pricing quirks quickly, according to the people, to avoid alienating the initial wave of consumers.

A failure by consumers to sign up online in the hotly anticipated early days of the “exchanges” is worrisome to insurers, which are counting on enrollees for growth, and to the Obama administration, which made the exchanges a centerpiece of its sweeping health-care legislation.

If not resolved by the Oct. 1 launch date, the problems could affect consumers in 36 states where the federal government is running all or part of the exchanges. About 32 million uninsured people live in those states, but only a fraction of them are expected to sign up in the next year.

Thirdly, it botched coverage for working families. USA Today:

A so-called “family glitch” in the 2010 health care law threatens to cost some families thousands of dollars in health insurance costs and leave up to 500,000 children without coverage, insurance and health care analysts say.

That’s unless Congress fixes the problem, which seems unlikely given the House’s latest move Friday to strip funding from the law, which is also called the Affordable Care Act.

Congress defined “affordable” as 9.5% or less of an employee’s wages, mostly to make sure people did not leave their workplace plans for subsidized coverage through the exchanges. But the “error” was that it only applies to the employee — and not his or her family. So, if an employer offers a woman affordable insurance, but doesn’t provide it for her family, they cannot get subsidized help through the state health exchanges.

That can make a huge difference; the Kaiser Family Foundation said an average plan for an individual is about $5,600, but it goes up to $15,700 for families. Most employers help out with those costs, but not all.

Fourth, Obamacare is so poorly-constructed, it manages to louse up coverage and payments for the working-class employees who actually have good plans and care right now. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Kathleen Sebelius managed to be so astonishingly incompetent in designing, building, and implementing this program, they’ve managed to screw over their most stalwart allies. From the Center for Public Integrity:

Many union workers are in health plans with solid benefits and relatively low copayments and coinsurance obligations. Democrats drafting the law bought the insurance-industry’s argument that Americans need to have more “skin in the game,” meaning they should pay more for care out of their own pockets even if they’re insured.

I’ve talked to union members who have not had a raise in years because of rising health care costs. They’ve been willing to forego wage increases at the bargaining table in exchange for keeping decent health insurance.

Obamacare provides employers with a disincentive to continue to offer health plans that exceed a certain value. Such plans will be subject to a premium tax… Another unintended consequence of the law will mean that many other union workers — especially those in the building trades — will have to pay more for coverage than they do now.

I’ll give you a moment to chuckle at Obama-backing union members finding their health coverage is now all loused up, but it goes to illustrate just how badly this legislative and regulatory monstrosity is going to hit everyone – even the folks it would be most expected to help.

Now, if a plan is so bad that it hurts so many of the Americans it’s supposed to help… why are we implementing it?

Tags: Obamacare , Democrats , Barack Obama , Unions , Kathleen Sebelius , Nancy Pelosi

The Old ‘Engage Assad’ Crowd Now Compares Him to Hitler



Text  



From the Wednesday edition of the Morning Jolt:

Persuasion Tip: Stop Comparing Your Old ‘Partner for Peace’ to Hitler

How’s this for irony? Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, writing in the Wall Street Journal (text found here), back on June 5, 2008, in an op-ed headlined, “It’s Time to Talk to Syria”:

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, President George H. W. Bush did the improbable and convinced Syrian President Hafez Assad to join an American-led coalition against a fellow Baathist regime.

Today, these leaders’ sons have another chance for a diplomatic breakthrough that could redefine the strategic landscape in the Middle East.

. . . While many doubt Syria’s intentions, we have real leverage and some inducements that have more value to Syria than cost to us. There is no guarantee of an agreement, but the potential payoff is huge, and our current policy is failing.

Of course, that was 110,000 dead and a couple of nerve-gas attacks ago. The desire to punish a murderous, brutal dictator for using abominable weapons is good and noble and right. But it’s insufferable to be told that we have to do this, by the crowd that a half-decade ago kept telling us how wrong we were about Bashar Assad, and how he was just a misunderstood, reasonable reformer.

During a debate, Obama said he was willing to meet with Assad in the first year of his administration. (The summit never took place.) Pelosi did meet with him, and said afterwards, “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace.” Kerry met with him at least six times. Now Kerry tells us, “Bashar al-Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who have used these weapons in time of war,” and he’s alluding to the Holocaust.

You spent much of the past decade insisting we judged Assad too harshly. Let’s see some humility, fellas.

On Tuesday, the two guys who five years ago confidently assured the world of Assad’s value as a partner for peace went before the Senate and confidently assured the country that the administration’s plan for limited long-distance airstrikes would be quick and effective.

Hagel’s testimony showcased how the conventional wisdom about him was almost entirely wrong. Remember, he was supposed to be the quasi-isolationist budget-cutter who wanted to disengage from the Middle East. Perhaps he still is, and he’s stifling what he really believes in service to the president. Or perhaps he never really meant it, and merely grasped that the media would embrace and adore him as a veteran anti–Iraq War Republican. Or perhaps he’s not really sure what he thinks.

“Wait, you’re serious? You want me to go to the Hill and get them to sign off on this?”

War Salesman Hagel sounded quite different from War-Weary Skeptic Hagel — particularly when discussing Syria.

Chuck Hagel in May 2012:

“I think we’ve got to be very wise and careful on this and continue to work with the multilateral institutions in the lead in Syria. I don’t think America wants to be in the lead on this,” he said. “What you have to do is manage the problem. You manage it to a higher ground of possible solutions, ultimately to try to get to a resolution. You don’t have control over what’s going on in Syria.”

“You’ve got to be patient, smart, wise, manage the problem,” he said.

“We’ve got to understand great-power limitations. There are so many uncontrollable variables at play in Syria and the Middle East,” Hagel said. “You work through the multilateral institutions that are available, the U.N., the Arab league. The last thing you want is an American-led or Western-led invasion into Syria.”

Lesson: Nobody really knows how cabinet appointments will turn out. Foreign Policy magazine, back in December 2012:

With Hagel at the helm, Obama could proceed even more quickly with cutting the defense budget and retrenching abroad, while largely neutering his Republican adversaries. . . . He would also be a likely opponent of direct American intervention in Syria and push for as small a remaining military force in Afghanistan as possible. His entire thrust is to emphasize diplomacy over brute power. Hagel’s doctrine is crystal clear: No matter how well-intentioned America may be, it cannot single-handedly impose democracy abroad.

Chuck Hagel, back in 2007:

I have to say this is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I’ve ever seen or ever read about. . . . They have failed the country.

The job’s a little harder than it looked from the outside, huh, Mr. Secretary?

Yesterday Ron Johnson, Wisconsin, asked a devastating question:

You say this is the world’s red line, not ours, and I agree. So how many partners will we have with us?

If sending troops is the price of stopping chemical attacks, almost all of the nations in the world are actually perfectly okay with chemical attacks, as long as they’re not downwind.

Tags: Chuck Hagel , John Kerry , Nancy Pelosi , Barack Obama , Syria

Pelosi Declares Old Summit Partner ‘Outside the Circle of Civilized Human Behavior’



Text  



House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, today: “President Obama didn’t draw a red line; humanity drew a red line decades ago.” She said Assad’s use of chemical weapons was “behavior outside the circle of civilized human behavior, and we must respond.”

She also said that the United Nations acted too slowly to be the principal venue for resolving the Syrian crisis.

File photo:

Above: A leader demonstrating “behavior outside the circle of civilized human behavior.”

“We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Pelosi told reporters after her talks with Assad.

Tags: Bashir Assad , Nancy Pelosi

The Name ‘Pelosi,’ the Voldemort of Red House Districts



Text  



Today’s Morning Jolt features a preview of the Benghazi hearings, praise for an NR colleague, and then last night’s big news . . . 

This Just In from South Carolina: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Hey, Democrats. You just spent a bundle and lost . . . to Mark Sanford.

The argument that we can’t learn anything about 2014 from an individual special House race is generally true. But Alex Roarty of National Journal — a.k.a. that insider, non-conservative publication that National Review staffers are often mixed up with — repeats my point from yesterday: Democrats put a lot of money and effort into this race, against a Republican candidate they thought was uniquely beatable. (And in fact, he was. But “uniquely beatable” doesn’t always mean you will beat him.)

Now we see all of that Democratic spending gained nothing: $1.2 million in donations to Colbert Busch, more than $929,000 on independent expenditures against Sanford . . . FLUSH!

And there is a lesson for 2014: Mark Sanford managed to overcome the electorate’s wariness about him by emphasizing that a vote for his opponent was a vote for Nancy Pelosi and the Obama agenda. Red-state and red-district Democrats have always had a tough balancing act, emphasizing how they’re not like those other Democrats; Elizabeth Colbert Busch in the end just wasn’t a talented enough candidate to pull that off. (In short, she wasn’t that talented a candidate at all. “The Solyndra of the South,” as Nathan Wurtzel summarized.)

Any remaining red-district Democrats really have to run hard from Pelosi from now until November 2014.

Moe Lane:

This should have gone to the Democrats; but, well, there’s that pesky albatross. May Nancy Pelosi stay House Minority Leader, well, forever. . . . If they can’t win House seats in R districts under these circumstances, they won’t win ‘em under more even ones.

Betsy Woodruff was at the victory party:

There will be lots of analysis in the days to come about what this election means, but one thing isn’t up for debate: Mark Sanford knows how to campaign, and his win here is due at least in part to his tireless canvassing and cheerful willingness to ask for the vote of anyone who would listen to him.

When he arrived at the victory party, Sanford was in full-on retail-politics mode. I followed the former governor on the campaign trail the day before the election and wrote about his perpetual handshaking and small-talking. Winning the election doesn’t seem to have tempered his pace. When he arrives at the party, he laps around the front of the building (which, a server tells me, is more crowded than it’s ever been), posing for pictures and hugging supporters.

Two things are different from the day before, though: First, he’s wearing a suit instead of stained khakis and busted-up shoes, and actually looks like someone who might belong in the halls of the Capitol. And second, he’s got his oldest son, Marshall, in tow. He looks around for his son every minute or two — when he loses sight of him, he asks the nearest staffer, “Where’d Marshall go?” and whenever he gets a chance, he introduces the 20-year-old to supporters who haven’t met him.

Mark Sanford’s sister, Sarah Sanford Rauch, isn’t far behind. She’s one of his veteran campaign volunteers, and she’s outspoken about her support for her embattled brother. I ask her how she feels.

“Exhausted,” she tells me. “It’s the toughest race I’ve ever been in. I’ve helped out on a bunch of races, but this is the toughest, by far.”

“You wake up every morning and you look at the newspaper and you wait to see what anvil is getting dropped on your head each day,” she adds.

Somebody else is feeling the headache this morning.

In other words, while Pelosi has always had a handful of members who were likely to stray, she can expect even less agreement from members like Jim Matheson of Utah (R+16), Nick Rahall of West Virginia (R+14), Mike McIntyre of North Carolina (R+12), John Barrow of Georgia (R+9), and Collin Peterson of Minnesota (R+6) — and perhaps Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona (R+4), Patrick Murphy of Florida (R+3), Pete Gallego of Texas (R+3), and Ron Barber of Arizona (R+3). Because if invoking Pelosi was key to Sanford overcoming the well-funded Colbert Busch, imagine how it will play in districts where the Republican doesn’t have Sanford’s baggage?

Tags: Mark Sanford , Elizabeth Colbert Busch , Nancy Pelosi , House Democrats , House Republicans

Comparing Obama’s 5 Percent Sequester Sacrifice to Pelosi’s . . .



Text  



We may scoff that Obama writing a check to the U.S. Treasury for $1,666 a month is a meaningless gesture designed to fool those who can’t do math that he’s making a significant sacrifice in the Age of the Sequester . . . but I suppose there are more objectionable approaches for a lawmaker to take:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she opposes a cut in congressional pay because it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers’ jobs.

“I don’t think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “I think it’s necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded.”

The comments were made in the context of the looming sequester, which would force across-the-board cuts affecting most federal offices, including Congress.

As House minority leader, Pelosi is slated to make $193,400 this year; most members of Congress make $174,000.

Pelosi’s net worth is estimated to be $26.4 million, which reflects her husband’s real-estate investments.

Also unmentioned in the coverage: will Vice President Joe Biden be writing a check for 5 percent of his salary as well?

Above, Nancy Pelosi at a May 2012 ceremony where Middle Drive East in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park was renamed “Nancy Pelosi Drive.” Naturally, the road heads south and bends to the left.

Tags: Barack Obama , Joe Biden , Nancy Pelosi

Wanted: A Running Mate Who Will Fight Back, With Passion!



Text  



Whomever Mitt Romney picks as his running mate, I hope that person understands the need to come out of the gate as a fighter. The language of the first appearance and convention address doesn’t need to be snarling or angry, but right now, millions of Republicans and independents feel like the world has gone crazy, and no one seems intent upon setting it right.

  • Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is basically making things up, claiming that “a number of people” have told him about felony-level tax evasion by Mitt Romney. (Technically, zero is a number.)
  • House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declares, “it is a fact” in response to Reid’s charges and his unnamed sources, and labeling the opposition party, “the E. Coli club.”
  • A new ad from President Obama’s SuperPAC declares, “Mitt Romney killed my wife.” (The man’s wife died seven years after Romney left Bain Capital.)
  • The Obama “Truth Team” distributes a charge that Romney’s ad hitting Obama for changing the work requirements for welfare “has racial overtones.”
  • The attacks on Romney have gotten so insane that Joe Biden looks relatively normal lately.

If, God forbid, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Joe Biden were to be struck by genuine neurological dementia, how would we be able to tell?

For whatever reason, Mitt Romney has chosen to not respond in kind; it is left to RNC Chair Reince Priebus to declare Reid a “dirty liar.” But Reid, Pelosi, the president, his campaign, and his allies continue to throw out weapons-grade nonsense into the media environment with absolutely no consequence whatsoever.

There was a time, not long ago, when if the Senate Majority Leader was going to accuse his opponents of a crime, he had to at least point to some evidence, lest he be derided as a McCarthyite, a demagogue, a liar and a toxic influence to public discourse. There was a time when presidential campaigns did not casually accuse their opponent of murder. There was a time when not every criticism of an opponent’s policy triggered a knee-jerk accusation of “racism!”

No one wonders why our political class is so disappointing. It’s because no sane person would want to step into the BS maelstrom that is modern politics. No one wants to deal with a world where people believe that having the right view entitles you to berate restaurant drive-through attendants. Why participate in public debate, if you’re guaranteed to be demonized and denounced as among the worst of humanity?

Our political culture has gone insane. Millions of us want something better, and perhaps Romney thinks he can embody this by taking the high road. Perhaps he is correct that it’s impossible to argue that you’ll be something better if you’re “punching back twice as hard,” as the president’s top strategist once pledged. But somebody has to call out this nonsense for what it is – and I think many, many Republicans are waiting, with growing impatience, for someone to do that.

Tags: Barack Obama , Harry Reid , Joe Biden , Mitt Romney , Nancy Pelosi

We Need New Terms For What the Media Labels ‘Gaffes’



Text  



Today is one of those rare days when I’ll post the entire Morning Jolt here, as it is basically one long examination of the dominant topic of the campaign in recent weeks… So if you aren’t subscribed already, do so.

A Gaffe-tastic Morning Jolt!

We need a better, more specific term for the statements our current political journalism calls “gaffes.”

Because a lot of different statements are being thrown together under this category, and wildly contrary interpretations of candidate’s statements have become the premiere battleground of the 2012 campaign. Perhaps this is an inevitable result of a general election season that began in April or so – we’ve already hashed out the candidate’s agendas and records and ideas and vision; all that’s left is to go over each day’s unscripted comments like they’re the Dead Sea Scrolls.

For example, take then-candidate Obama’s statement, “I’ve now been in fifty-seven states, I think one left to go.”

Now, does anyone actually believe that President Obama thinks there are 57 states? He’s presumably tired, he’s thinking the number forty-seven, and his mouth is just running away from him. Happens to people all the time. He definitely sounds silly – as someone noted, “how many states are there?” is the sort of question they ask you after a concussion – but no one should draw any serious conclusions about Obama from this statement. (Then why do Republicans love the “57 states” statement so much? Because it is a lovely reminder that the candidate touted as the greatest orator since Cicero can sound dumb on his off days, too.)

Does Mitt Romney make some gaffes that deserve some criticism or mockery? Sure. “I’m not concerned about the very poor” comes to mind, or the strange description of himself as “severely conservative,” or joking to those looking for jobs, “I’m also unemployed.” Sometimes there’s this Zen surrealism to his off-the-cuff statements, like, “I love this state. The trees are the right height.” (Tell me you can’t picture Special Agent Dale Cooper making that statement in Twin Peaks.)

But to judge from the coverage of the past week or so, Romney makes a “gaffe” every time he speaks  – and the media, obsessed with advancing a “narrative”, now applies the word “gaffe” to very deliberate statements. What the term gaffe now means is, “a statement that someone, somewhere, doesn’t like.”

Of course, as Romney left the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw, Poland this week, some journalistic genius bellowed at the candidate, “what about your gaffes?!?”

Well, what about them? The alleged gaffe of London was Romney accurately mentioning two widely-covered stories in an even-tempered, casual tone in response to an unanswerable question: Is London ready for the games? The apoplectic reaction of the British press and Mayor Boris Johnson says more about them than it does about Romney.

Then another alleged “gaffe” is Romney’s comment about the cultural differences between the Israelis and Palestinians. Is there anyone in America who wants to argue that the culture within the Palestinian territories – where Hamas runs the show, where there is no free press, where kids are taught to glorify suicide bombers, and where vast sums of foreign aid get sucked into rulers’ coffers – is a superior culture to Israel’s? Go ahead. I’m all ears. Enough of this blame-the-embargo crap. Israelis don’t make Palestinians steal foreign aid. Israelis don’t make Palestinians teach kids that the noblest calling is to blow themselves up in a pizzeria. Israelis don’t make Fatah and Hamas subject Palestinian journalists to  harassment, detentions, assaults, and restrictions.

Helpful hint: Any time your culture is dominated by organizations that have a “political wing” and some other not-political wing that often carries rifles and wears masks, you’re going to have some serious problems. Society can only hash out its differences in an orderly manner when the political wing is the organization as a whole.

Some, like Dave Weigel, are convinced that Obama’s recent “gaffes” are routine slips of the tongue or unclear verbiage and that Republicans are making a ridiculous stink over them – but that Romney’s statement in London is a legitimate story. It will not surprise you that I think precisely the opposite – but perhaps the newsworthiness and significance of a gaffe is going to be in the eye of the beholder.

The term “gaffe” now applies to…

Verbal misstatements and grammatical errors: “57 states,” Joe Biden calling his running mate “Barack America”, etc.

Brain freezes: Rick Perry in the debate. Of course this looks bad during a moment in the spotlight, but anyone who has never had this happen to them, raise your hand. Uh-huh. Didn’t think so.

Honest statements that are admissions against self-interest: President Obama declaring during a meeting of his Jobs Council, “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.”

Unusual ideas: Newt Gingrich’s pay-kids-to-be-janitors idea.

Genuinely harmful erroneous statements: Joe Biden saying, “I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now,” in an appearance designed to reassure the public about swine flu, or Michelle Bachmann repeating a mother’s claim that Gardasil causes retardation.

Controversial or unpopular points: See Romney’s Olympics and Palestinian statements above.

The only thing that these types of statements have in common is that they are “off-script,” or unpredicted. The same press corps that whines that candidates are cookie-cutter, stiff, scripted, sticking to predictable talking points, etc., loves to tear apart candidates for spontaneity, speaking casually, thinking out loud, and having things come out a little garbled.

In that light, how should we assess President Obama’s “the private sector is doing fine”, “if you have a business, you didn’t build that” and “our plan worked”? The argument from the president’s defenders is that each one is literally true and only sounds odd to those who don’t understand the context – that the private sector is creating jobs while state and local governments cut back, the “that” refers to roads and bridges, not the business itself, and the plan refers to Bill Clinton’s tax hikes, not Obama’s enacted policies. The problem is that all of these explanations aren’t as exculpatory as his fans think:

A)     If 80,000 or so jobs per month – not enough to keep up with workforce additions –  is your idea of “doing fine,” you’re setting the bar too low.

B)      Even if President Obama was talking about ‘roads and bridges,” business owners did indeed pay for that, through income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and business taxes.

C)      Even if Obama meant Clinton’s tax hikes when he said our plan “worked,” he’s crediting the Clinton tax hikes are the cause of the 1990s economic boom – not the rise of the Internet in American life, the dot-com bubble, etc. “Our plan worked” contends we’re just one big tax hike away from restoring four percent annual GDP growth. Except that the tax hikes were enacted in 1993, and the boom didn’t start until 1996-1997.

The argument from Obama’s critics would be that the “gaffes” aren’t misstatements but signals of what Obama really thinks – that the private sector’s current growth rate really is “fine,” that he thinks businessmen smugly give themselves too much credit for their success and not enough credit to government, and that tax hikes are good for the economy. Perhaps Republicans read too much into these remarks … but perhaps not.

Anyway, carping that the press makes a big deal out of Republican gaffes and ignores Democrat ones is an old, well-founded, and tired complaint. But what’s striking is that the result of this culture of within the press corps is that at least three of the highest figures in the Democratic Party today are among those most prone to making statements that range from the bizarre to the outrageous to the unhinged… and they pay no discernible price for these habits. No matter what they say, the labels “dumb” or “foolish” never seem to stick to them.

Exhibit A: Vice President Joe Biden. “Big [blank]ing deal.” “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television…” “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent…. I’m not joking.” “The president has a big stick. I promise you.” “John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs.”

Exhibit B: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “The CIA misleads us all the time.” “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.” “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.”

Exhibit C: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “You could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol.” Barack Obama would be helped by being a “light-skinned” African-American with “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” “Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good.” “We in the Senate refer to Sen. Gillibrand as the hottest member.” “Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He’s my pet. He’s my favorite candidate.”

I mention all this because Harry Reid is at it again.

Saying he had “no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy,” Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.

“Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years,” Reid recounted the person as saying. “He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

Hey, a Nevadan told me Harry Reid runs an underground dungeon of hookers and gladiatorial games. Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain.

ADDENDA: Lori Ziganto offers the emphatic phrase of the week: “You can quote me on that, but attribute it to Bob Dylan.”

Tags: Barack Obama , Harry Reid , Joe Biden , Mitt Romney , Nancy Pelosi

Remembering the ‘Miserable Reality’ and ‘Crisis’ of 4 to 6 Percent Unemployment



Text  



Keep in mind, the stimulus was touted as a massive spending project that would keep the national unemployment rate below 8 percent.

Instead, we have had 39 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent, and the national debt is $4,890,570,120,943.74 ($4.89 trillion) more than it was on the day the stimulus passed.

Remember what Barack Obama said about adding just $4 trillion in debt, and over eight years instead of three and a half:

As you hear Democrats and members of the media insisting that an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent isn’t that bad — ignoring how much of the drop from the peak is driven by Americans ending their job searches and leaving the workforce — recall how they greeted economic times that look positively bountiful compared to our current state:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, December 21, 2002: “This is a crisis.” Unemployment rate at that time: 6.0 percent.

The New York Daily News, 11/2/2003:

The good news that economic growth leaped from June through September runs smack up against the miserable realities of a 6.1% U.S. unemployment rate and a state jobless rate of 8.8%. Until those figures drop, there is no cause for celebration in the streets. Count reviving the national economy as one mission that President Bush hasn’t accomplished.

Letter from Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle to President Bush, November 20, 2003:

American workers are weathering the effects of an economy where there is only one job for every three individuals searching for a job.

The Boston Globe, March 6, 2004:

In a statement issued from his Washington, D.C., campaign headquarters, Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, said the latest employment figures show that President Bush has “over-promised and under-delivered” on job growth.

The unemployment rate at that time: 5.6 percent.

November 2006:

Pelosi was not to be outdone, however, firing back at the president who she claimed had “the worst jobs record since the Great Depression,” in spite of Friday’s news that the October jobless rate fell to 4.4 percent, the lowest it has been in more than five years.

Tags: Barack Obama , John Kerry , Nancy Pelosi

Another Stimulus-Funded Energy Company Hits the Skids



Text  



Another stimulus success story — well, success for Democratic lawmakers and a company that received millions in federal funds, not for the taxpayer, laid-off workers, or the customers who will probably never purchase the product of the rapidly sinking company.

A Waltham-based electric car battery supplier — now facing financial implosion despite receiving $249 million in federal stimulus cash — was a heavy donor to congressional Democrats before scoring the hefty taxpayer handout, the Herald has learned.

A123 Systems CEO David Vieau has donated $16,900 to Washington, D.C., power brokers and Democratic committees since 2008, including $2,400 to Bay State Rep. Edward J. Markey, the chairman of the climate and energy committees, in 2009 — just three months before A123 received $249 million in federal stimulus funds. Vieau donated another $1,500 to Markey last year as the company pushed for even more federal dollars through government loans.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, another ardent supporter of the company, received $2,000 in campaign donations from Vieau in 2010, the same year Vieau gave $2,500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In 2008, Vieau donated $4,800 to campaign funds supporting President Obama and $200 to the Democratic National Committee.

The Boston Herald also reports:

A123 has laid off more than 100 employees and seen a net loss of $172 million through the first three quarters of 2011 despite the heavy infusion of federal cash. A123 has yet to turn a profit, and losses have been mounting. Earlier this month, the company posted a fourth-quarter loss of $85 million despite $40.4 million in revenue. The company’s stock tanked to an all-time low of just more than $1 yesterday on news of a $55 million battery recall. A defective battery caused a luxury electric car, the Fisker Karma, to conk out earlier this month in a Consumer Reports test.

A luxury electric car called the “Karma” fails a test because of a product from a company that received stimulus funds. Hmmm.

The only thing this story lacks is Obama touring the factory. But perhaps Pelosi will do:

Markey squired then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi through A123’s former Watertown headquarters in June 2010 as a “great example of how Recovery Act funding is helping American companies.” Pelosi called Markey a “true visionary of our time.”

Tags: Ed Markey , Nancy Pelosi , Stimulus

Where Will Nancy Pelosi Be on President’s Day?



Text  



Maybe the Bush family isn’t so opposed to Newt Gingrich after all . . . at the very least, they seem to have little disagreement about sitting down with Nancy Pelosi. She will speak Feb. 20 at the George (H. W.) Bush Presidential Library Center at Texas A&M University.

Tags: George H.W. Bush , Nancy Pelosi

Newt’s a Fighter, No Doubt About That!



Text  



Newt Gingrich, when you do stuff like this (HT: Ace of Spades), I almost forget all my doubts about your abilities as the GOP nominee:

“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Nancy Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. “When the time is right. . . . I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

Gingrich, who served as Speaker of the House, worked with Pelosi in Congress from 1987 to 1999. Pelosi also served on the ethics committee that investigated Gingrich for tax cheating and campaign finance violations in the late ’90s.

Newt responded:

First of all, I’d like to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift. If she’s suggesting she’s gonna use material she developed while she was on the ethics committee, that is a fundamental violation of the rules of the House and I would hope members would immediately file charges against her the second she does it.

As Lincoln said of Grant, “I need this man. He fights.”

Tags: Nancy Pelosi , Newt Gingrich

Relax, Mr. President, Pelosi Says All the Polls Are Wrong.



Text  



From a new profile of Nancy Pelosi in the New Yorker: “Pelosi rarely watches television, except for sports, and she hasn’t watched any of the Republican Presidential-candidate debates. She believes that Obama is in better shape than the polls indicate. ‘The Republicans are helping him a lot,’ she said. ‘The extremists—I don’t like to even use that word—those Republicans going too far, sort of stir up the Democratic base, and point out the urgency.’”

I love how she calls Republicans “extremists,” and then says she doesn’t like to use that word.

Either way, Pelosi’s assessment that Obama is stronger than the polls indicate deserves a bit of context; perhaps no figure in Washington has ever so adamantly and steadfastly insisted that a particular political outcome could not occur, only to watch that precise outcome occur, as almost everyone else expected. As I noted in June:

February 28, 2010: “Pelosi Says Democrats Will Keep Control of the House”

March 1, 2010: “Nancy Pelosi predicts Democrats will hold the House”

May 19, 2010: “Bring it on: Pelosi predicts ‘for sure’ that Dems will win House”

July 15, 2010: “Pelosi guarantees Dems will retain House in November”

September 14, 2010: “Speaker Pelosi ‘Absolutely’ Confident Dems Will Retain House Majority”

September 28, 2010: “’I fully expect to be speaker of the House five weeks from now,’ Pelosi replied.”

October 9, 2010: “Vilified or Not, Pelosi Insists She’s Winning”

Midday of Election Day, November 2, 2010: “’With the early returns and the overwhelming number of democrats who are coming out, we’re on pace to maintain the majority in the House of Representatives,’ Pelosi said.”

To refresh your memory, the Democrats lost 63 seats, more than the 39 seats required to shift control of the House.


Tags: Barack Obama , Nancy Pelosi

Americans: We Don’t Have Much Faith in Anybody Right Now



Text  



I know it will come as an enormous shock to you, but the Washington Post found that Americans don’t have much faith in any figure in Washington to resolve the debt-ceiling issue.

Democrats can find a bit of solace in that Obama rates the highest among the six figures, but even he’s “underwater,” with 49 percent having little or no confidence in him, and the two figures with the least amount of public confidence are Senate majority leader Harry Reid (57 percent say “not too confident” or “no confidence”) and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (61 percent).

Looking at the party breakdown, we’re left wondering, who are the 10 percent of self-identified Republicans who have faith in Pelosi here? And would anyone have expected Republicans to have more faith in Harry Reid than Barack Obama?

Tags: Barack Obama , Eric Cantor , Harry Reid , John Boehner , Mitch McConnell , Nancy Pelosi

Yawn. Another Bold Prediction From Nancy Pelosi.



Text  



I understand that when Nancy Pelosi predicts that Democrats will do well in upcoming elections, reporters probably have to mention it in their coverage. But how the prediction justifies headlines, or constitutes anything resembling actual news, escapes me. A quick trip down memory lane:

February 28, 2010: “Pelosi Says Democrats Will Keep Control of the House”

March 1, 2010: “Nancy Pelosi predicts Democrats will hold the House”

May 19, 2010: “Bring it on: Pelosi predicts ‘for sure’ that Dems will win House”

July 15, 2010: “Pelosi guarantees Dems will retain House in November”

September 14, 2010: “Speaker Pelosi ‘Absolutely’ Confident Dems Will Retain House Majority”

September 28, 2010: “’I fully expect to be speaker of the House five weeks from now,’ Pelosi replied.”

October 9, 2010: “Vilified or Not, Pelosi Insists She’s Winning”

Midday of Election Day, November 2, 2010: “’With the early returns and the overwhelming number of democrats who are coming out, we’re on pace to maintain the majority in the House of Representatives,’ Pelosi said.”

To refresh your memory, the Democrats lost 63 seats, more than the 39 seats required to shift control of the House.

Today: “Exclusive: Pelosi Says Democrats Have ‘Very Good Chance’ to Win Back the House in 2012.”

But of course she does.

Tags: Nancy Pelosi

A Madlib Statement From a Mad Lib



Text  



Can you think of a bad thing, a key voter demographic, a good thing, and some group designated to be villains by the Democratic party?

Then you too can write Nancy Pelosi’s response to Paul Ryan’s budget!

As you have probably noticed, almost every statement from Pelosi utilizes a basic formula from the “Mad Libs” games we did as kids: “The (current GOP proposal) is a path to (bad thing) for (key voter group) and a road to (good thing) for (designated villain).”

Already, Pelosi has used this simple formula to declare, “The GOP Ryan budget is a path to poverty for America’s seniors & children and a road to riches for big oil.”

Later today, you’ll probably hear her add, “The GOP Ryan budget is a path to deprivation for America’s minorities and handicapped and a road to euphoria for health insurance companies.”

And by tonight, she’ll by saying, “The GOP Ryan budget is a path to obsessive-compulsive disorder for America’s exurban independent voters age 30 to 49 and a road to abundance for Charlie Sheen.”

Tags: Nancy Pelosi

New DCCC Head: Yes, We Want Pelosi to Be Speaker Again



Text  



The NRCC is giddy this morning:

Dem campaign chief: Goal is making Pelosi Speaker again

House Democrats’ goal is to make Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) the Speaker of the House again, their campaign chairman said Wednesday evening. 

Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), set his goal as nothing short of winning back control of the House in the 2012 elections. ”We’re all trying to win it back,” Israel said on MSNBC when asked if it was Democrats’ goal of winning back enough seats to make Pelosi, the former Speaker and new minority leader, the next Speaker.

You’ll be seeing Nancy Pelosi, and this headline, in a lot of House race ads in 2012 . . .

Tags: DCCC , Nancy Pelosi , NRCC , Steve Israel

Pages

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review