Sticking Up for Nancy Pelosi
It’s no secret that Democrats could barely exist if it weren’t for scapegoats. Because they rely entirely on identity politics in pursuit of votes, the particular scapegoat depends on which group is being seduced.
It’s no secret that Democrats could barely exist if it weren’t for scapegoats. Because they rely entirely on identity politics in pursuit of votes, the particular scapegoat depends on which group is being seduced.
If the crowd consists of transgenders and the other sexually-bewildered members of the LGBT community, the Democrats will target devout Christians and others who question the validity of same-sex marriages or the practice of letting boys shower with girls.
If the crowd consists of Muslims, the scapegoat will be anyone who thinks Sharia Law has no place in American society and that an open-door immigrant policy when it comes to Middle Easterners is just asking for trouble.
If the crowd is one comprised of Hispanics, especially if most of them are here illegally, the scapegoat would naturally be Donald Trump, who has given voice to the adage that good fences make for good neighbors.
But like sharks who can apparently smell blood in the water, liberals have no compunction about turning on their own. After seeing their numbers dramatically deplete in the House, it was only a matter of time until they began screaming for Nancy Pelosi’s head on a pike.
Aside from possessing a supernatural ability to raise money for the DNC, I really don’t know what role San Francisco’s favorite ditz plays behind the scenes. I’d be surprised, though, if it was she who decided that Jon Ossoff would be the ideal candidate to go after Tom Price’s recently vacated congressional seat in Georgia’s sixth district. I assumed — naively, perhaps — that Mr. Ossoff made that decision on his own.
I simply can’t believe that anyone else would look around and conclude that a nerdy-looking 30-year-old who couldn’t come up with a more compelling work history than “documentary filmmaker” and who, by the way, couldn’t even vote for himself because this yutz lived four miles outside the congressional district he yearned to represent, was the best the Democrats could do.
If anything, the fact that the DNC was in a position to finance his campaign to the tune of roughly $32 million (which worked out to roughly $280-a-vote) should accrue to Mrs. Pelosi’s benefit. As I see it, her role in the race was to help pay for the entry fee, the travel van, the stable and the feed, but she wasn’t the jockey or even the nag, although she often manages to sound like one.
Although I wouldn’t normally object to the Democrats beating up on one of their own, even if that one also happened to be my age, but like Donald Trump and a few other Republicans, I want to see Pelosi maintain her role as the House minority leader. That’s because for many voters, she, even more than Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer or Elizabeth Warren, represents the face of the Democrats, and it’s a face they have come to despise over the years.
On a related matter, one of my readers let me know how disgusted he was that the total amount spent in the Handel-Ossoff contest, $55 million, set a record for House elections. He seemed to think it was an immoral amount to be spent in that fashion.
I let him know that I didn’t agree. For one thing, it wasn’t my money and my taxes hadn’t gone to pay for the election. For another, the Supreme Court has ruled, correctly in my opinion, that political donations are a form of free speech and are therefore protected by the 1st Amendment.
Furthermore, while money plays an important role in elections, it isn’t the be-all and end-all. Otherwise, not only would Mr. Ossoff have prevailed, but Hillary Clinton would have buried Donald Trump last November.
So long as Democrats continue emptying their coffers and losing elections, it sounds like one of those all too rare win-win situations.
After I took exception in a recent article to our continuing to wage war in Afghanistan, someone let me know that the country represents a strategic land mass. He added that Afghanis are among the most savage and hardy people on the planet, by which I expect he meant that when their soldiers aren’t busy killing our GIs, they make formidable allies.
I replied that there are so many trouble spots in the world, including North Korea, China, Syria, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, that there is hardly a non-strategic land mass on the planet, but you notice we haven’t been squandering blood and treasure for 16 years in any of those others.
As for their alleged fighting prowess, in a time of drones, smart bombs and the mother-of-all-bombs, I don’t think it matters any more than proficiency with saber and lance meant during World War I.
I heard an anonymous member of the Bill Cosby jury explain why he was one of the two people who refused to convict. It seems he felt that Cosby had already suffered enough. My question is: why isn’t the D.A. seeking to prosecute him for perjury? After all, I’m certain that during jury selection, aka voir dire, he was asked if the evidence was sufficient to establish Cosby’s guilt, would he be willing to deliver a guilty verdict. Clearly, the man lied. Had Mr. Cosby broken down in the courtroom and confessed to his sins, the way miscreants used to do regularly on the old TV series, “Perry Mason,” this fool would still have let him walk.
Some of the goony birds in the chattering class took exception to Donald Trump’s telling the crowd in Iowa that he intentionally sought out wealthy people to oversee the financial departments in his administration. It made sense to me and it seemed to make sense to those in the arena that he’d prefer to surround himself with those who had some actual experience dealing with large sums of money. In the same way, it makes sense to staff defense positions with people like “Mad Dog” Mattis, who have had firsthand experience with war.
It’s just that liberals exist in an echo chamber where everyone around them likes to pretend that rich people only got that way by robbing others. It appears that the media darlings never ask themselves who signs their checks, preferring, it seems, to believe it’s that epitome of nobility, the homeless guy sleeping on the sidewalk outside NBC or the psycho urinating on the side of the New York Times building.
After reading more and more articles about the shadow government lurking in the darkest regions of the CIA, the FBI and the NSA, conniving with the vulture media to bring down Donald Trump, I came to have an unpleasant insight. You see, for years I’d been watching those high-tech conspiracy movies like the ones having “Bourne” and “Mission Impossible” in their titles, full of rogue government agents and evil bureaucratic masterminds, and regarded them as nothing more than escapist fare that provided Matt Damon and Tom Cruise with extraordinary pay days.
Only recently have I concluded that Hollywood has been producing $200 million documentaries.
