Tag Archives: Nancy Pelosi

This Looks Like a Must Read

Posted on by
Reply

On August 21, Richard Miniter will debut his new book: “Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.” It should be a bombshell.

Miniter is the author of two top-ten New York Times bestsellers, Losing Bin Laden and Shadow War, as well as Mastermind, the first biography of 9/11 planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. He knows what he’s talking about.

The book looks like it will confirm a scenario other than the one the media spun on the operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. This is in line with other reports I’ve read. Amazon describes it:

Barack Obama has never been fully vetted—until now.

In Leading from Behind, New York Times bestselling investigative journalist Richard Miniter presents the first book to explore President Obama’s abilities as a leader, by unearthing new details of his biggest successes and failures. Based on exclusive interviews and never-before-published material, Leading from Behind investigates the secret world of the West Wing and the combative personalities that shape historic events.

Contrary to the White House narrative, which aims to define Obama as a visionary leader, Leading from Behind reveals a president who is indecisive, moody, and often paralyzed by competing political considerations. Many victories — as well as several significant failures — during the Obama presidency are revealed to be the work of strong women, who led when the president did not: then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; and Valerie Jarrett, his closest adviser and an Obama family confidante, whose unusual degree of influence has been a source of conflict with veteran political insiders.

In Leading from Behind, you will learn:

· Why Obama’s relationship with Israel was poisoned years before he met Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu

· The real reason for Valerie Jarrett’s strong hold over both Barack and Michelle Obama

· ObamaCare wasn’t Obama’s idea. It was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s. And the real reason he danced to her tune.

· Obama delayed and canceled the mission to kill Osama bin Laden three times and then committed an intelligence blunder that allowed dozens of high-level members of al Qaeda to escape.

· Why Obama destroyed a secret budget deal with House Speaker John Boehner that would have reformed entitlements, slashed spending, and reduced the national debt—without raising taxes

· Why Obama is determined to save Attorney General Eric Holder, even though he has mislead and stonewalled Congress about “Operation: Fast and Furious”

· Why Obama decided to defy the Tea Party and ditch his plans to end earmarks

In Leading from Behind, Richard Miniter’s provocative research offers a dramatic, thoroughly sourced account of President Obama’s White House during a time of intense domestic controversy and international turmoil.

Americans Shifting Blame

Posted on by
Reply

From The Hill comes this good news: “Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.”

Finally! Maybe Americans have awakened to the fact that most of Bush’s presidency was a time of improving economics. Americans and the media forget or conveniently forget that when Bush took office he was handed a poor economy from the dot.com bubble.

Bush was getting us out of that morass and then 9/11 came along and dealt a severe blow to us. We had been underfunded at the Defense Department and had to put together a campaign from the leftover bits Clinton left them. Still, the economy improved, reaching a 7.8 GDP in one of the quarters.

It wasn’t until the Democrats took the House that things began to go wrong. First, Nancy Pelosi pushed through a raise in the minimum wage. Sounds good, but the result was many businesses had to stop hiring people, especially young people.

Then, Bush asked Congress five times to take a look at Fanny and Freddie. The Dems wouldn’t. Barney Frank assured us they were OK. Every time Bush pressed, they pushed back and nothing was done at a time when some of the damage could have been avoided.

The Hill has more:

It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.

The poll, conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, found 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure.

Obama has argued throughout the presidential campaign that his policies have made the economy better. He says recovery is taking a long time because he inherited such deep economic trouble upon taking office in 2009.

“The problems we’re facing right now have been more than a decade in the making,” he told an audience last month in Cleveland.

We’re not a society known for our patience. I think it has finally worn out.

And Obama wants us to worry about Romney’s success? Would he have preferred he failed?

WWBD?

Posted on by
Reply

This acronym has popped up on bloggers’ sites ever since the untimely and tragic death of Andrew Breitbart.

There is nothing irreligious about it. It probably makes more sense than the WWJD popular among shallow Christians. After all, saying what we thought Jesus would do in certain situations is a bit, well, presumptuous. Even the apostles were surprised at Jesus’ actions and responses.

Anyhow, WWBD is appropriate for the conservative movement. For Andrew Breitbart would enter any fray, enthusiastically, sincerely, patriotically. He had a love of his fellow Americans, but that didn’t mean he left his principles behind.

I thought of this after an outing last night that was pure Midtown liberal nirvana. It paired art, causes and liberalism. The artist at the event moved long ago from Memphis to that liberal mecca, Berkeley, California. She probably lives in Nancy Pelosi’s district. A conservative in that flock stood out like a NASCAR fan at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration.

It was not the place to blurt out “who plans on voting for Santorum like me?” or “Rush nailed it on the contraceptive issue today.” But neither was it a place to shun. That’s what a lot of us have done in the past few decades. We figure we aren’t welcome and concede. We’ve done it in local governments to some extent, in school administration and in the entertainment industry. Now we are shocked that many of our fellow citizens aren’t with us.

That was one of the things so great about Breitbart. He dove right in no matter. He wasn’t rude unless someone attacked him. He wasn’t conciliatory or one to deny his beliefs. He countered and sparred and persevered.

That’s what we’ll have to do. Not to go looking for a fight, but to engage. Not to browbeat but enthrall. Not to proselytize, but to inform.

It won’t be easy, but it must be done. Breitbart showed us how.

What Does Nancy Know?

Posted on by
Reply

Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House, patriot and observant Catholic, says she knows something about Newt Gingrich. She was being interviewed by John King who asked this:

John King, CNN: “You make your case there passionately for President Obama. But also understand that this is a tough reelection climate for any president, Democrat or Republican in this economy. Because of your history with Speaker Gingrich, what goes through your mind when you think of the possibility, which is more real today than it was a week or a month ago, that he would be the Republican nominee and that you could come back here next January or next February with a President Gingrich?”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: “Let me just say this. That will never happen.”

King: “Why?”

Pelosi: “He’s not going to be President of the United States. That’s not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn’t going to happen.”

King: “Why are you so sure?”

Pelosi: “There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that’s their prerogative. I don’t even think that’s going to happen.”

So what does Nancy know? What in her mind is so blockbuster that it would turn the public against him?

It’s hard to say, what with Nancy’s bizarre behavior and aging brain, but I have a few ideas.

Could she be a spurned woman? After all, she and Newt shared that couch in the global warming ad. Maybe what bugs her is that she made a pass at him and he didn’t bite. Maybe she figures he should have hit on her. Who wouldn’t
be attracted to the big busted grandma?

Maybe she’ll come out with something shocking like Newt and Osama Bin Laden are cousins. Maybe Newt’s even his evil twin. Osama had multiple wives, Newt had multiple wives. Just sayin’.

Maybe she and Newt have a love child. Maybe Hillary and Newt have a love child. Capitol Hill was a busy place during the Clinton years.

Now she can’t say he’s gay, transsexual, atheist or black because that would offend her own constituencies. Not that there’s anything wrong with that especially in her home district of San Francisco. So if Newt went around in his office dressed as Judy Garland, well that would be ho hum. She wouldn’t get the shock value.

As for using drugs, that would bring him the Ron Paul voters. No, it can’t be that either.

If it’s a money/bribery thing, our ace reporters will have that tracked down. With a Republican, they are as relentless as hounds at a British fox hunt. No matter how small it is, they will find any penny misspent or unaccounted for.

Could it be blackmail? Did Newt blackmail anyone? That would be bad. But wait a minute! Isn’t that what Nancy’s doing? I guess when you’re a Democrat it’s called something different like a kind, considerate warning.

Given Pelosi’s state of mind, I have to think she’s bluffing. She wants to get in his head – and ours – so to scare us off.

Whatever it is, isn’t it time for her to retire? Isn’t she being greedy by keeping her job when young people are looking for one?

I guess it’s different if you’re her.

Newt-ness Will Wear Off

Posted on by
Reply

Looks like it’s Newt Gingrich’s time to come under the microscope.

When the primaries began he was rather low in the polls. Since then other candidates’ fumbles and stumbles have many Republicans thinking that he is our ABM (anyone but Mitt) guy.

Hold on. This morning a blog named Betsy’s page puts it all in perspective with “Why this shouldn’t be Newt’s moment.” In case you have forgotten or don’t know this about Newt, her compilings from the blogosphere on him should snap a conservative out of his stupor.

First off she quotes Michael Brendan Dougherty of Business Insider. He asks “Ever wonder why Newt Gingrich has so many ideas? It’s pretty simple. Ideas come to you easily when you have no principles to get in the way of your roaming untrained intellect.” Here are a few things he doesn’t like:

“Newt promoted the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
He was for a federal individual health care mandate, the lynchpin of ObamaCare.
He was practically spooning Nancy Pelosi in commercials about the need for government action on global warming.
He supports green energy projects (Solyndras) and farm subsidies.
Even as late as this year he was pitching for more government intervention in the health care system at the progressive Brookings Institution.”

Dougherty sees problems lapping over from Newt’s private life. “Gingrich is the face of redstate family dysfunction and hypocrisy. If you somehow nominate this man, say goodbye to character counts arguments. You’ll have lost the already.”

Neither does he like that “when Newt gets a question he doesn’t like, he starts whining petulantly. He practically faints as if his corset has been pulled too tight. C’mon conservatives, you know this doesn’t appeal to you.”

Gary P. Jackson says that conservatives can’t trust Gingrich. “Anytime the chips were down, whether it was backing a far left liberal “republican” like De De Scozzafava instead of a solid conservative in New York, hopping on the couch with Nancy Pelosi while shilling for Al Gore’s global warming hoax, shilling for the ethanol farmers, or wanting to replace one giant government boondoggle with another, you could always count on Newt Gingrich to betray you.”

Jennifer Rubin adds this. “Gingrich has supported the individual mandate and cap and trade. He vouched for Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. At various times he supported creating the Dept. of Education, ethanol subsidies and Medicare Part D. And let’s not forget his counterproductive and false attack on Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan as conservative social engineering.”

This is just the tip of the iceberg the U.S.S. Newt would hit. Read the rest at Betsyspage.blogspot.com.

Thoughts on the Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Perry did better than expected. I liked his feisty quality. He was a presence this time. Perry was right about the 9-9-9 plan; it will boost everyone’s sales tax to an insupportable level. He hinted that he will be introducing his next economic plan Friday and that it will be based on a flat tax. Not a surprise, really, in that Steve Forbes is advising him on it.

All I got out of Cain was you can’t mix apples and oranges. He seemed to flub in trying to explain his plan. Who wants to pay almost 20% sales tax in Tennessee? Or any sales tax in tax free New Hampshire? I don’t see them going with this plan. It truly will hurt lower and middle income people. And what of sales of used goods? That is something unclear in his plan. The vagaries of it would lead to bartering and finding ways around the law. Plus, who thinks he could get it through Congress? He has no legislative record. Sorry, but business is not the same as working with the opposition.

Some say Newt won the debate. Perhaps. He is intelligent and has steeped himself in issues via his foundation. But I can’t get the picture of him on a couch with Nancy Pelosi, pushing for global warming initiatives, out of my mind. I believe he did it with Al Sharpton, too. Ugh. Newt also has a proclivity for self destruction. He has a talent for saying the odd thing that gets him in trouble. His personal finances are also grist for the rumor mill. He didn’t strike me as highly successful in dealing with Clinton when he was Speaker. Clinton outmaneuvered him every time. Not a good omen for working with the media and the Democrats.

Romney seemed flustered when accosted with illegal immigration employment and Romneycare. Sparring with Perry, methinks Romney doth protest too much. He said Massachusetts residents preferred his Romneycare 3 to 1. Where did he pull that number out of? He criticized Perry and Santorum for interrupting, but when on to hog time and to jab every chance he had.

Ron Paul didn’t seem to lose an eyebrow this time. His thoughts on the economy are good, but when it comes to foreign policy, he’s a disaster. Does he think all the bad players will go away because he wants them to? Very naive.

It was great to have Huntsman absent. He’s already out of money. Santorum did well, but he’s out of money, too. He didn’t win his home state in the last election; he wouldn’t win it in 2012. Michele Bachmann always comports herself well, but her chances seem slim, too.

The questions this time had a better range of issues. Anderson Cooper did pretty well handling the candidates. It would be nice if there were fewer players on the stage. There really isn’t time to get into anything in detail.

Less Is More?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s amusing that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is steamed that the Republicans will not have a response after President Obama’s speech tomorrow night.

You know that if they were planning one, she’d be mad about that, too. Whoever delivered it would be pilloried as an obstacle to Obama’s wholly selfless, patriotic plan to give struggling Americans the jobs they need.

Now because they won’t attack him, she’s peeved. Pelosi called it “disrespectful to him and to the American people.” Huh? Would she prefer name calling or criticism? I thought that might be more disrespectful. After all, it’s not the traditional State of the Union address.

In short, Pelosi finds it an offense that the Republicans won’t be offensive. What a crazy world!

Words of the Week

Posted on by
Reply

It’s over the top week! That usually means an election is near or a close vote.

Take, for instance, Nancy Pelosi’s turn of phrase yesterday. She said Speaker John Boehner had gone “over to the dark side.” Wow, that sounds ominous. Dark as in Satanic or has his deep tan reasserted itself? From her horror you’d suppose he’s going to start slashing Grandma, babies and the handicapped as soon as he can get this bill passed. Wait a minute – that’s the Democrat plan: cut Medicare by 500 billion, fund Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills and set up death panels through the Health Care bill.

Then Pelosi called him Darth Boehner, alluding to the Star Wars villain. Really, Nancy, with all your Hollywood friends you could at least make allusions from the last decade instead of raiding the 70s. And what happened to all the jibes about cry baby Boehner? Suddenly the teary eyed Speaker has become the evil Master of the Universe. Who knew he had this side to him?

Continuing on the evil streak, Democrat Congressman Emanuel Cleaver says the debt ceiling deal is a “Satan sandwich. This deal is a sugar coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” he said, implying that it helps the rich and hurts the poor. There’s no sunshine band from this KC resident. Just two questions: Is it super hot like hell and do I get fries with that?

No less than writer Peggy Noonan has also taken aim. The former Obama fan has soured on him and wrote about it in her Wall St. Journal column. Particularly apt was her description of Press Secretary Jay Carney. He “stands there looking like a ferret with flop sweat.” Nailed!

Sadly, another appropriate turn of phrase succinctly expresses the state we’re in. The economy is being called “debt man walking.” Let’s hope he doesn’t take us all to the chair.

Two Self Destructed This Weekend

Posted on by
Reply

Mike Huckabee announced on his show Saturday night that he was not going to run for president. That eliminated one of our potential presidential candidates.
Then Sunday on “Meet the Press” Newt Gingrich had his turn. His candidacy was only a few days old and already he eliminated himself.
Not technically, of course, but in reality he offed himself among conservative voters when he told David Gregory that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance.
“I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay – help pay for health care. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond.” He dug himself in even deeper when he admitted he that he agrees with key aspects of Romneycare.
That’s bad enough. Then he went on to criticize Paul Ryan’s budget plan as “right wing social engineering.” What gives? On Bill Bennett’s radio show April 5, he was full of praise for Ryan’s plan. As Ryan told the host on Laura Ingraham’s radio show this morning, “With allies like that, who needs the left?”
Gingrich gave the Democrats a talking points gift with his remarks. He also abandoned one of Republicans’ arguments against the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
Rarely do you see a skilled politician so quickly and effectively commit suicide.
Anyone having doubts about him – and many of us do due to his waffling around Bill Clinton – just got a reminder of how the former Speaker can act. You may recall his more recent self infliction when he posed with Nancy Pelosi in front of the Capitol in an ad in support of global warming initiatives.
Put the fork in him, he’s done.