Why is Nancy Pelosi still the minority leader in the House of Representatives?
Despite a challenge from a much younger Ohio representative who appeared to be able to try, at least, to explain Democrat positions, the Grand Old Biddy of the House was reelected as minority leader after the 2016 election disaster for the Democrats -- one that was very much influenced by the perception of Democrats as far, far out of touch. That would be the perception that they are led by people like, well, Nancy Pelosi.
Mrs. Pelosi characterizes the bubble that actual America sees Democrat leaders as living in, from the mercifully no-longer-in-office Barack Obama to the out-in-the-woods Hillary Clinton to the he-can't-believe-what-he-is-saying Chuck Schumer, as living in. They surround themselves with toadies and sycophants and people who agree with them (or won't disagree) -- including the press.
When the facts simply don't align with their version of reality, these "leaders" simply make stuff up, and have come to understand that the sycophants and toadies in the formerly-great American press will not challenge them.
And this was never more on display than in a conference call with that press, held by good old Nancy earlier this week. She was trying somehow to claim that funding for the wall with Mexico would be provided at the expense of all nature of other wonderful things that the Federal government does, including lots of things the Federal government has no business doing, according to the Constitution.
God as my witness, Nancy Pelosi actually said this:
“He [President Trump] did not promise that he would take food out of the mouths of
babies and seniors and education, clean air, clean water, scientific
research off the table in a significant way in order for him to pay for
his immoral, ineffective, unwise proposal of a wall.”
So President Donald Trump is going to starve babies, kill seniors, pollute the water, choke off the air and drive science back to the 1840s. Seriously, she said that, and she said that in a news conference with actual reporters. OK, I don't know what reporters were on the call, but obviously not particularly critical ones.
What must it be like to be a Democrat now, knowing that the people speaking for what you believe in, whatever that may be (and I'm still not sure, after a long presidential campaign), come off like that? Is there a thoughtful Democrat out there who can listen to that nonsense and still claim to be a Democrat, and be satisfied knowing that Nancy Pelosi speaks for you?
She is, as Senator Ted Cruz said yesterday, a "special kind of ..." (he politely declined to complete the sentence).
Funny thing, though. Writing about Nancy Pelosi, you tend to hit a wall simply because she has grown into a partisan loon, more to be pitied than censured. But it does make you ask some questions as you seek to be fair. I thought, well, let's take her words seriously. What does she actually mean, when you peel back all the absurd rhetoric?
That got me looking at the 2016 Democrat platform. Since we never really heard a message from them, at least not from Hillary "Vote for me, I have a uterus" Clinton, I thought I would pick a random place in the platform to look at, and yes I am rambling.
There is a title that I got to, by a random scroll through the platform document, which is, hilariously, still online for all to see. The title was "Making the Rich Pay Their Fair Share", if memory serves. I actually didn't linger on the page lest they pick up my IP address and start asking for money.
"Good", I thought; now I could finally find out what "fair share" means. Maybe I might agree.
I read every freaking word of that section, from keeping people from stashing money offshore, to a surtax on multimillionaires (like Hillary, we assume). They didn't explain exactly how to tax multimillionaires, since we tax income, not wealth (duh). I read about the words "fair share" more times than I can quote, vainly looking for the answer to the question I have repeatedly asked of the left.
My query? Never once in the platform did they ever even suggest what someone's "fair share" actually was, and I still don't know. Was it 50%? Was it 80%? Is there a figure that is the highest percentage that anyone should ever have to pay between Federal and state/local taxation? And what would be the justification for that rate?
I know what that has to do with Nancy Pelosi babbling about dirty air and water and starving children. The left is so bereft of ideas that its own platform cannot answer a basic question about its intent and cannot rationalize an actual goal or end state. So it has to resort to waffling and vapid words.
No wonder they continue to elect equally vapid leadership, even though their own babbling long ago went past the level of baseline stupidity. I'm told that Nancy Pelosi is still the minority leader because she raises money for candidates better than her competitors for the job. The price to the Democrats is exposure to the public of her vapidity.
Money talks, we guess. Certainly with Democrats.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob
at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving
new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at
firstname.lastname@example.org or on Twitter at @rmosutton.