Completely Clueless On Public Service, Dammit

[filkertom]

Once again, I am chagrined to see someone I had great hope for Simply Not Get It:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in a determinedly good mood when she sat down to lunch with reporters yesterday. She entered the room beaming and, over the course of an hour, smiled no fewer than 31 times and got off at least 23 laughs.

But her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic "base" over her failure to end the war in Iraq.

"Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."

Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

Though opposed to the war herself, Pelosi has for months been a target of an antiwar movement that believes she hasn't done enough. Cindy Sheehan has announced a symbolic challenge to Pelosi in California's 8th Congressional District. And the speaker is seething.

"We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow," Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders."

Not if you aren't leading, you aren't.

The monumental fucking arrogance. You WORK for us, Ms. Pelosi. You and the other members of Congress and the cretin in the White House and the bozos on the SCOTUS. And it's fricking well time you remembered that.

You want to know how to end the war tomorrow, Ms. Pelosi? End the war tomorrow. Or today -- why wait? Say, "The funding has officially dried up for everything except getting everybody home." Yes, I know it likely won't go through, because the Republican scumboys in Congress have shown themselves still unnaturally supportive of the Chimperor and his insane policies. BUT AT LEAST FUCKING SAY IT.

This reminds me of the bullshit a couple of years ago when the Bush administration wouldn't even support a ceasefire between (I believe it was) Israel and Hezbollah (supported by Lebanon and Syria) until they had settled the problems between them. You have a ceasefire so that you CAN solve the problems. It's somewhat easier to do when you're not shooting at each other, y'know?

Speaker Pelosi, the reason you have all those people on your lawn is that you were elected to do a job you're not doing. You know the old trope, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way"? If you think what you're doing now is leading... get out of the way.

Comments

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

Or, even more apropos to her complaints that the peasants have the gall to pester her: "If you can't stand the heat; get out of the kitchen."

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

If it were that easy, she would have done it already. Alas.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

No, no, I don't think she would have. Because, if she did, and it didn't pass, then she could bring it up again. And again. And keep saying, "The American people want us out of Iraq. Polls to that effect have been running at around 70% for over a year. Our military is broken, our coffers are empty, our reputation is trashed, there is no clear mission, and still we stay because the President wants us there. And some of you keep supporting him, in spite of all evidence that it's a really terrible idea. Why? Why do you want to keep us in Iraq?"

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

It might not be easy, but she campaigned on this issue, acting as if she was going to try to do something, and is now saying that she can't. Threaten impeachment, cut off funding, anything. Instead, they rolled over.

[rook543.livejournal.com]

I'm not surprised...

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Control of the agenda means that if it gets voted down, it comes back up. Let the Republithugs play whack-a-mole with war funding, and make it clear that it's there, but hinges on timely withdrawal.

And get impeachment back on the table; there's plenty of choices for which charges to prefer.

Damned lapdogs. (Which reminds me. Got to get the Blue Dogs out of Congress; they're wrong on essentially everything.)

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Pre. Effin. Cisely.

[solarbird]

Well, you know, We All Need to Support our Tireless Democratic Party because Someday, When It Is Safe, they will Do The Right Thing.

To wit, you know, fuck that. I am so sick of these excuses. This Congress has so far been about three things: 1) failure to act except when 2) actively enabling, and 3) making whiny excuses. I'm sick of it.

[hamadryad.livejournal.com]

I agree whole-heartedly with this comment.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with you about how the Democrats have not at all served the purpose for which they got elected this round. I think that purpose was unrealistic, but I agree they havent' done what the electorate asked them to, and they've been pretty weasley about trying to avoid folks noticing that.

However, note that the SCOTUS is not elected by the public, and there's a strong argument that they don't work for us, that they instead work for the US Constitution.

The SCOTUS is not answerable to the voting public for a very good reason - the Constitution must be buffered from day to day, month to month, and year to year changes in the political landscape.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

However, note that the SCOTUS is not elected by the public, and there's a strong argument that they don't work for us, that they instead work for the US Constitution.

HUH? The SCOTUS, five of them anyhow, work for the Republican Party of America. The only thing they revere about the Constitution is that it feels soft and fluffy when they wipe their asses with it.

[wildcard9.livejournal.com]

You know, I think that every time a "get out of Iraq" bill fails, another 100 Mil of war funding should get cut off. Start with a budget of 1 Bil which is voted down, so next time it is submitted it is only 900 Mil, then 800 Mil, then 700 Mil, and see how long it takes them to get the point that if they keep it up the number will be ZERO (which it should have been already by now). Heck, forget the attempts, just cut it by 100 Mil for every week the troops are still there. Yeah, I know, I am not sure how that would work in real life but I can still dream.

[pagawne.livejournal.com]

If georgiy-porgiy is impeached the person to take over is really Much more dangerous to us.

Getting out of the mess georgiy-porgiy got us into over there is going to take time unless you want an even nastier mess than the one we made. And it would be one that would come back and bite us in the a**. Do you really *want* just the thugs filling the power vacuum over there? Think about it. They have "big guns" and big money, and hate us all to he**. Do you want a government who openly encourages terrorist tactics against us? Again, think about it for a bit. As a Marine wife I have had to do so. It isn't pleasant.
Georgie-porgie made the mess to prove he had bigger ones than his dad, and now our military has deal with the mess he and his dirty friends made, and clean it up.

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

Impeaching Bush would show that Congress has the balls to do something about it, and would send a message to Cheney that he's next if he doesn't keep in line.

[alymid.livejournal.com]

I am 100% for "ending the war" - but what does that mean? What happens if we pull out all of our troops at the end of the month. We have created a situation there that is disgusting, and currently our troops don't seem to be able to do much to improve the situation. But I am not sure that waltzing out the door is right solution - we helped create the mess - I think it is our responsibility to try to help clean it up.

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

You can't clean up this mess by force.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

Notice that she's only got a problem with activists when they're camping on her front door. I didn't hear her complaining that Cindy Sheehan's camp outside of the Crawford Ranch was similar to a bumtown; when they're on her doorstep, though, they're like homeless people with a point. They're vagrants that she cannot legally have arrested because they aren't "just" sleeping there but are protesting.

She and her fellow Democrat "leaders" are in Washington to protect the same thing that the Rethuglicans are: their own private interests. Never doubt politicians; if you think they're worried about the masses, they've fooled you.

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

It's fairly simple. The politicians and the rich are the new Aristocrats.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

That explains a lot.

Especially my dazed, nauseated "That's an, erm, interesting act; what do you call it?" reaction to everything they do.

[gavroche42.livejournal.com]

I've always thought that if there was going to be an impeachment, it should be of Cheney, not W. (Definitely don't want President Cheney, even for a short time.)

But either way, Impeachment runs electoral risk from those moderates who seeing in their mind the Dems wasting tax payer money in exactly the same way the GOP wasted it with Clinton, might swing back, or stay home. Yes, both have done things that may deserve impeachment, but that doesn't mean it makes strategic sense to actually spend the money on that effort.

I definitely want a strong third party with the values of the Democratic Party, and the backbone of the GOP. Of course, choosing between those who will get stuff done I hate, and those who will get some stuff done I like, but alas, not as much as I would like...the choice is easy.

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

Yes, because the Clinton impeachment was so devastating to the Republicans that they never had a chance to take over.

Lack of respect for the Bill of Rights

[tcgtrf.livejournal.com]

This is a fine example, Tom, of why I don't hold out much hope of things getting better with a Democratic victory in 2008 (and believe me, there'll be one that will be indisputable--more like Reagan or LBJ than W's 2000.)

The newly elected officials will take advantage of the Patriot Act, wiretapping and all the other little gifts Bush and Cheney left them to remove any remaining semblance of freedom in this country.

I figure by the middle of Hillary's second term in 2014 or so we'll be looking back at the Bush administration with some longing, just as those libertarian Republicans that still have a conscience are currently pining for Bill Clinton.

It's going to be really bad before it gets better.

Tom

Re: Lack of respect for the Bill of Rights

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Hell, I'm looking back to Truman.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

Speaker Pelosi, what part of the right of the people to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" do you just not get?

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, what both sides are doing is brilliant politics.

The Democrats want this war to last for the entire duration of the Bush administration, that way it will be forever ingrained in the public mind as "Bush's War".

In retaliation, the Republicans have every intention to begin war with Iran right before the Bush administration ends so that the next President, who will likely be a Democrat, will be in a completely unwinnable situation.

That, alas, is the credo of American politics, not "Do what's best for America", not "Serve the public", but "Make the other guys look worse".

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

King Log and King Stork.

That's pretty much the reason I still support the Democrats. I figure it's still much, much better to have a government that fails to solve our problems than one that is feverishly working to create more problems and make the existing ones worse.

[jannyblue.livejournal.com]

Link to the above-referenced fable.

And I agree on preferring a log...

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

"You have a ceasefire so that you CAN solve the problems."

Or, as a gentleman who did know how to lead and paid dearly for it, put it:

"Yes, we will make peace with our enemies. We do not need to make peace with our friends."

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

My reaction, which I may well send to her:
------------------------------------------------

Speaker Pelosi:

That will be the last time I grant you that honorific. Your recent press conference demonstrates that you do not deserve it -- that you have, in fact, abandoned those who gave it to you.

Ms. Pelosi, you call yourself a leader, in contrast to the mere "activists" who demand you, and the rest of the Democrat-controlled Congress, fulfill certain campaign promises.

This past November was a referrendum, Ms. Pelosi. It clearly showed that the American public is extremely dissatisfied with the "management" of the war in Iraq (and elsewhere). It was a clear demand for an end to the war.

You have not lived up to that demand. And you have not lived up to your title.

Yes, Ms. Pelosi, the First Amendment does indeed protect that "rabble" on your lawn. The wonderful, glorious, magnificent First Amendment provides many protections against tyranny, chief among them the right to speak out when the government no longer serves its people.

Because, Ms. Pelosi, you are not a leader. You are a servant of the public trust. You were elected by the people, and it is your job to serve them. Yes, even the scruffy-looking ones that annoy your neighbors.

Being a Representative is not about impressing the neighbors. It's about _representing_. As in, representing the interests of the American public -- your employer, which you seem to have forgotten.

Enjoy the rest of your term, Ms. Pelosi. By refusing to help solve it, and denouncing those who call you on same, you've shown yourself to be part of the problem. Be assured that we will be shopping for a new Congress if things do not change.

[hiddenriver.livejournal.com]

She's flat-out wrong. We don't elect "leaders" in this country. "Leaders" are for dictatorships and totalitarian governments, not democracies or democratic republics. We elect individuals to represent our collective interests. They work for us; we are not their subjects, as would be the case with actual leaders. This is true whether we're talking about a city council member or the president of the United States.

For crying out loud - her job title is "U.S. Representative", not "U.S. Leader".

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Her job title, as far as I'm concerned, is "Former Speaker of the House".

Loving the icon, by the way ^_^

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

She's the decider.

By the way, the recent Pelosi-supported House Foreign Affairs Committee resolution, calling on "the U.S. to designate the World War I-era killings of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide" (Bloomberg) and supported by Pelosi, may be the makings of an absolute disaster in Iraq. (And provide enormous support to the radical right's claim that the Democrats don't support the troops.) If Turkey stops allowing supplies to the troops in Iraq to pass through Incirlik and invades Kurdish Iraq, this war may end very badly indeed.

[joecoustic.livejournal.com]

What drives me crazy is every time that a Democratic Congress person says "we don't have the votes". Well yes you don't have the votes to put through most anti-war legislation but from what I can understand you do have the votes to not pass further legislation. I'm all for stopping war funding but assuming that's somehow too radical, why is it too much to expect them to not approve the warrant less wiretapping, torture bills, or wrist slaps to those name calling - this they keep doing and they don't have too!! They don't need 60 votes to stop doing any of these things (if I'm understanding this right).

I hate that I'm feeling so angry toward the party that I identify as my own!

[jenrose]

We need a new political party. We'll call it, oh, BALLS.

That's it. We'll have the Dems, the Repugs, and the Balls.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

Garden? Trees? San Francisco real estate features neither of those things, unless these protesters crawled into her backyard (at which point the SFPD hauls you away for trespassing.) Something is very odd here.

If I remember correctly, Pelosi lives on Russian Hill. No trees, but easy access to cable cars!