Pelosi's 'bipartisanship': Excludes the minority party and new Congress members

Somebody needs to get House Leader Nancy Pelosi a dictionary, so she can look up a few words, like "bipartisanship," "merit," "liberty," and "democracy." I am amazed at how especially liberal politicians think they have the right to legislate out the gamut of influence, and legislate in the autocratic ideals of seniority over credibility, claiming that the closed-minded policies they are trying to set are to prevent their own superiorly "diverse" politics from being closed out by the other guys -- the evil, mean-spirited conservatives. Gag.

Here's what's so absurd about the things Pelosi is working toward (see article and all the links below): It's one thing, and hardly anyone is against, aid functions for those in need and the privilege challenged. This kind of "liberal" politics is an entirely different animal, and it is creepy. It is not liberal, not progessive, it is legislating one-party rule, and the Democrats actually think they have the right, since they are so much more "diverse" in their thinking. Please.

Pelosi is simply a simple-minded leader. Have a look at this offense.

John Fund Blasts Speaker Pelosi on 'Reforms' -
The rule changes Speaker Nancy Pelosi is steamrolling through the House of Representatives contradict President-elect Barack Obama’s bipartisan promises, and also fly in the face of Pelosi’s own pledge to “insure the rights” of the minority party.

That’s the view of Wall Street Journal columnist and author John Fund, who documented Friday how Pelosi’s tune has changed in a bid to drown out the voices of Republican minority opposition in Congress.

Fund points out that Pelosi’s new rules sharply contradict positions she took before Democrats came to power. In 2004, Fund says, Pelosi rolled out a "Bill of Rights" to protect the interests of the party not in power.

"When we [Democrats] are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America," Pelosi warned at the time. “We want a higher standard."

One of the ironies of Pelosi’s power grab, Fund points out, is that conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats are among the losers under the new rules because they often lack seniority.

Here's a link and some quotes from the John Fund opinion piece:

John Fund: Pelosi Turns Back the Clock on House Reform -

Every two years the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives introduces a new set of rules to govern the body. Normally, this event passes with barely a yawn from the public. But the changes pushed through on Tuesday by Democrats will have real-world consequences for fiscal conservatives of both parties.

Gone are term limits for committee chairmen, a big comeback for seniority over merit. Cost containment measures on Medicare, one of the fastest growing programs, are simply suspended for this Congress.

Mrs. Pelosi used to see things differently.
Back in 2004, she unveiled a proposed "Bill of Rights" to protect House minority interests. It called on Republicans to allow more meaningful substitutes to bills, give members enough time to read bills before final votes, and stop holding roll-call votes past the normal 15 minutes. She had a point. In late 2003, Republican leaders held open a roll-call vote on the Medicare drug entitlement for three hours until they bullied enough wavering members into voting aye.

Mrs. Pelosi warned in 2004 that "When we [Democrats] are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America." We want a higher standard." In 2006, just before becoming speaker, Mrs. Pelosi reiterated her plans to promote "bipartisanship" and "to ensure the rights of the minority."

That was then.

Smell that? It's called hypocrisy. Yeah, politicians wear it for pins, but damn, the House Speaker is a true champion of small-minded, narrow and self-assuring ideas.

I can only figure that Pelosi -- flakey Sen. Harry Reid in the other end of Congress, too, for that matter -- became the leader through exactly that kind of thinking on her part and the part of her longtime, long-complacent colleagues, I can only presume. What do I mean? She has no leadership skills beyond talking until her thick lipstick starts to dry, crack and fall off.

She'll have two grand accomplishments thus far as leader if she succeeds with the above: First, she let the deep financial crisis of 2008-09 hit without seeming to grasp any of the long, government-driven, regulation-poor (that's the duty of the legislature, not the White House, folks), developments that led up to it. These issues were as obvious as her mascara, but her eyes were famously those of a deer in headlights at those first press conferences during the insane and latent TARP bill negotiations action. Second, this, the cutting the GOP out of future failures in the House. It's good for the GOP, I guess, so keep it up, Nancy!

Dear California: Would someone in the great state please find some leadership-worthy person who doesn't remind us of the stereotypically arrogant, curt and unfathomably self-assured working mom in the neighborhood who terrorizes the other parents' children with her queer ideas about fairness (her kids get it, no one else)? Please?!!

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Post a Comment