Nancy Pelosi, who is clearly not so smart – such that she routinely has a hard time explaining serious policy matters on the Sunday TV shows (the new standard for statesmanship), even when she is the leader of the party proposing said policies, and frequently says nonsensical, facially incoherent things that are beyond Bidenesque, this week announced that voters shouldn’t fear one party rule should the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House. Why not? She could have declared that policy would be kept moderate; property rights would be respected; and change will be incremental enough to figure out what works. Instead, however, she said,
“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan,” said Pelosi.
A monolithic government will be more bipartisan! Amazing.
Tigerhawk comments, “What a strange world we live in that politicians can say such things and not get laughed off the stage even by their own supporters.”
Indeed. Very strange. Black is white. Day is night. Democrats are the articulate, intellectual party. Which newspapers does Pelosi read, again? Hasn’t Katie Couric asked? What kind of depth does she have on foreign policy? Off to Syria to chat with a dictator. It’s nice to know that our pundits are so polite that they choose not to embarass this scantily educated mother of five, even though she has been Speaker of the House of Representatives for two years, and in Congress for 10 before that. So chivalrous.
Are we not concerned that Nancy Pelosi is third in line to be president? We have heard an astonishing number of people discuss the likelihood that John McCain will die in office, leaving Sarah Palin to be president. A long list of putatively principled conservatives will be voting for the furthest left candidate in our history on that slim possibility. Why doesn’t anyone worry about what happens if an idiot like Pelosi becomes president, or even vice president?
Easy. If our next president happens to be a Democrat with genuinely radical political and economic views, such that he faults the Founding Fathers for merely giving negative freedoms from government intrusion — which he will rectify by reallocating the earnings of our labor to pay for great benefits to those who earn less — it would not be useful to have a serious Democrat, who may be liberal, but is not radical, in any position to resist. If Obama wins, and carries the House and Senate, he has two years to basically restructure the government, before midterm elections possibly give the opposition power. An intelligent, staunch, moderate Democrat in the Speaker’s position is an obstacle. With Nancy Pelosi we see the return of the newly useful concept of “useful idiot” epitomized.