Poor Nancy Pelosi
That seems to be the message that comes through in
Ross Baker's LA Times column. Here's a glimpse into his column, which is one of the most inane articles I've ever read in the LA Times, which says alot:
The reason we rail against Pelosi isn't because of gays or gun control; we do it because she's an idiot who isn't fit to control a chamber of Congress. Among the reasons why conservatives don't trust her is because she's: (a) supportive of Murtha's "immediate redeployment" of troops from Iraq, (b) supportive, in private, of Conyers' impeaching the President; (c) against lower marginal tax rates for anyone who makes more than $75,000; (d) mortified that the NSA would atttempt connecting the dots in a post-9/11 world.
Mostly, though, the GOP faithful don't like Ms. Pelosi because she isn't serious about protecting the nation from future terrorist attacks. Let's be clear: It isn't that she wants them to happen. I don't believe that for a split second. What I'm saying is that she says "Connect the dots", then rails against the NSA using computer technology to identify the dots.
As a libertarian myself, I'm wary whenever government does something that might limit my freedom, I worry. That said, when someone says, through their actions, that they want to take proven tools from the people who try preventing future terrorist attacks. (Before you say there isn't proof that data mining works, check out how Able Danger identified several of the 9/11 terrorists.)
Calling John Conyers volatile is letting him off the hook too easy. The guy's BDS is so bad that facts matter not to him. He sees high crimes and misdemeanors where they don't exist. He sees nonexistent conspiracy theories. A John Conyers' Judiciary Committee would investigate every big corporation that the looney left told him to investigate. That is, if they weren't so consumed with an impeachment 'investigation'.
As for Baker's " These replacements would be terrifying to hard-core Republicans, if any of them could distinguish these Democrats from a cord of wood " statement, most GOP faithful know full well who these moonbats are and what they represent. Rangel is a race-baiter from ages ago, Conyers is a charter member in the Moonbat Hall of Shame and Obey is an old-fashioned liberal spender from Wisconsin. Of that trio, Obey is the most sane. And no, that doesn't mean he's anything close to sane.
As for what San Francisco means to conservatives, I'd bet that most conservatives would say that Mayor Gavin "I'll take the law into my own hands" Newsom and Supervisor Gerardo 'Let's dismantle the military at wartime' Sandoval's scare them as much as Pelosi does. And that's saying alot.
This column proves, yet again, that moonbats like Baker don't have a clue about conservatives.
Posted Sunday, May 14, 2006 5:55 PM
No comments.
How better to divert the attention of swing voters from the Iraq war, gasoline prices and lobbying scandals to the visceral issues of same-sex marriage, abortion and gun control than to rail against an incandescent San Francisco liberal? Should any threat emerge to Pelosi before November, she could get moral, if not material, assistance from the West Wing.To left wingers like Baker, the GOP faithful are all about gay hating, guns and abortion. In fact, they think that that's the only thing Republicans think of. That's why they lose so many elections.
The reason we rail against Pelosi isn't because of gays or gun control; we do it because she's an idiot who isn't fit to control a chamber of Congress. Among the reasons why conservatives don't trust her is because she's: (a) supportive of Murtha's "immediate redeployment" of troops from Iraq, (b) supportive, in private, of Conyers' impeaching the President; (c) against lower marginal tax rates for anyone who makes more than $75,000; (d) mortified that the NSA would atttempt connecting the dots in a post-9/11 world.
Mostly, though, the GOP faithful don't like Ms. Pelosi because she isn't serious about protecting the nation from future terrorist attacks. Let's be clear: It isn't that she wants them to happen. I don't believe that for a split second. What I'm saying is that she says "Connect the dots", then rails against the NSA using computer technology to identify the dots.
As a libertarian myself, I'm wary whenever government does something that might limit my freedom, I worry. That said, when someone says, through their actions, that they want to take proven tools from the people who try preventing future terrorist attacks. (Before you say there isn't proof that data mining works, check out how Able Danger identified several of the 9/11 terrorists.)
A turnover in Congress would certainly bring forth a very different collection of leaders. In the House, the powerful Ways and Means Committee would be chaired by Harlem's Charles Rangel, an old-style liberal just itching to stick it to the toffs and high-rollers. The Judiciary Committee would be commanded by the fiery and volatile John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, like Rangel, an African American of an indelibly liberal stripe. The tempestuous David Obey of Wisconsin would likely take over Appropriations.Those three paragraphs are so full of BS that I won't point them all out because it'd take me the rest of the night.
These replacements would be terrifying to hard-core Republicans, if any of them could distinguish these Democrats from a cord of wood. Names such as Rangel, Conyers and Obey simply do not strike terror in the hearts of GOP loyalists as does that of Pelosi, the embodiment of what, to conservative eyes, is eccentric and bizarre about the Democratic Party.
For starters, Pelosi is a woman, a fit representative of what conservatives delight in calling the "Mommy Party." The toxic molecules that attach to this term include a craven shrinking from the use of force in international politics and excessive solicitude for society's unfortunates. Strike two is Pelosi's 8th Congressional District, which takes in roughly 80% of the city of San Francisco. This conjures up in conservative minds carnality, sensuality and immoral excess , and it casts Pelosi as the front-woman for the dreaded "homosexual agenda."
Calling John Conyers volatile is letting him off the hook too easy. The guy's BDS is so bad that facts matter not to him. He sees high crimes and misdemeanors where they don't exist. He sees nonexistent conspiracy theories. A John Conyers' Judiciary Committee would investigate every big corporation that the looney left told him to investigate. That is, if they weren't so consumed with an impeachment 'investigation'.
As for Baker's " These replacements would be terrifying to hard-core Republicans, if any of them could distinguish these Democrats from a cord of wood " statement, most GOP faithful know full well who these moonbats are and what they represent. Rangel is a race-baiter from ages ago, Conyers is a charter member in the Moonbat Hall of Shame and Obey is an old-fashioned liberal spender from Wisconsin. Of that trio, Obey is the most sane. And no, that doesn't mean he's anything close to sane.
As for what San Francisco means to conservatives, I'd bet that most conservatives would say that Mayor Gavin "I'll take the law into my own hands" Newsom and Supervisor Gerardo 'Let's dismantle the military at wartime' Sandoval's scare them as much as Pelosi does. And that's saying alot.
This column proves, yet again, that moonbats like Baker don't have a clue about conservatives.
Posted Sunday, May 14, 2006 5:55 PM
No comments.
