Propriety is still relevant: a defense of Nancy Pelosi.

[calteacherguy]

Pelosi's comment about Stark's statement was completely appropriate in her role as Speaker of U.S. House of Representatives. As speaker, part of her role is to form coalitions; you form coalitions by making friends, not enemies. The kind of language Stark engaged in is language he of course has a right to engage in constitutionally, but Pelosi in her role as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives was correct in calling it inappropriate. Part of her job is to try and promote an atmosphere of civil discourse, not personal attack. Yes, she's a Democrat and it's far better to have a Democratic Speaker than a Republican one, but her constitutional role is more important than defending everything a fellow Democrat says. And, again, this takes away nothing from Stark's absolute right to say what he did. Just understand Pelosi does have a role to play as Speaker that goes beyond her Party affiliation.

[mmonk]

1. I know what her constitutional role is.

eom.

[rodeodance]

2. She did fine with her mild little fly swap. I imagine she felt she had too-----just to shut up

the RW (not that they will shut up)-----but it was fine by me.

[babylonsister]

3. Can you imagine if she - gasp! - defended him? What would the risk be,

the ire of the rethugs? What IF! all Dems stood behind her for standing behind Stark. What would the risk be? I think they would all be applauded.

[calteacherguy]

6. Having the Speaker of the House endorse a statement such as...

"The President sends kids to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his amusement" would have very grave consequences. We have a constitutional government. The Speaker of the House and the President ought to make an effort to work together, irregardless of political differences. She's doing that, even with GWB, and that's a good thing.

Politically for Democrats, having a Democratic Speaker of the House endorse such a statement woud be political suicide. The speaker should not be engaging in or endorsing personal attacks against the President, especially ones that accuse him of being amused by the deaths of U.S. soldiers. No matter how wrong GWB's policies are or what you think of him, that is just wrong.

[countingbluecars]

7. This lunatic of a president

deserves no respect.

[madeline_con]

13. I'm with you. No respect. n/t

[emilyg]

15. He deserves the same respect he gives. Zero.

[babylonsister]

8. If that's the case, why doesn't she blame this president couched in

nicer terms for people such as you that think it's unseemly, but make it just as strong?
Why doesn't she blame him, finally, for this ill-thought out occupation that is wrenching our country apart?

[EFerrari]

9. Revisit the Republican Speakers

and Senate Majority Leaders' comments and compare and contrast. Not standing up for other Democrats is political suicide.

Pete Stark just got huge street cred in his district. Good for him.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. But having the Minority leader slime a 12 year old is fine

look... Stark spoke truth to power

At one time somebody said, Sir have you no shame?

What would have happened if back then people folded?

There are days I am amazed by the triangulation that leads to the real perception that Dems are weak and Cons are strong

[Whisp]

18. "We have a constitutional government."

o, really?
I thought parts of it are being given away.

[warren pease]

31. Then why couldn't she have simply kept her goddamn botoxed mouth shut?

There is no such thing as a constitutional government anymore. The president and speaker can't work together because, every time democrats pretend that there's still honor and decency in the white house, they get screwed yet again.

I think democrats in general, and Pelosi notably, labor under the illusion that the occupants of highest positions in the executive are rational men of honor and integrity. Most of us know otherwise; we have seen enough evidence to make a prima facie case that these monsters are some species of sub-human slime creature, and crazy as the Roman aristocracy with their lead cookware.

So for once a congressional democrat lifts the veil and declares that yes, in fact, the president is indeed mad as a hatter. You'd think this would be a rallying point for all those vacillating, craven dipshits who know this to be true but who are constrained from saying so themselves by some warped version of propriety or because they're just a little too lightweight for the job.

Political suicide? Seventy-six percent of the electorate disapproves of BushCo and all it stands for. Only 24 percent -- roughly the percentage of fundie nut cases extant in the general population -- support these bastards. I'd say more like political capital than suicide.

And btw there, calteacherguy, there's no such word as "irregardless," which begs the question, is our children learning?


wp

[mmonk]

34. A fake consequence in my estimation and in the estimation of the founding fathers.

The real consequences to constitutional government are already being felt by people in government who operate outside the rule of law and the constitution of the United States. Pelosi does not fight against their unprecented assault against the rule of law and the constitution in the manner required. This speech she is so quickly eager to jump on will be forgotten before long but the damage she won't fight vigorously against we are going to deal with a very long time.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. You know, the S CHIP bill has been handled well by the Congress,

which has the RW'ers going in circles as they spin, respin and respin again.

I have to say that the "Pelosi as evil incarnate posts" seem to be more prevalent than usual as the Congress has really held Bush's rhetorical tootsies to the fire. Correlation? Casual, at best, nothing more than an anecdotal observation.

MKJ

[EFerrari]

5. Tell her she has a role to play that exceeds her party affiliation.

And while you're at it, remind her life isn't an Austen novel.

She didn't have to undercut Stark. That was just plain stupid.

[ljm2002]

10. Right: She didn't have to undercut Stark.

All she had to do was "No comment", or (my preference) "I'll hold our House members to the same standard that holds for those on the other side of the aisle; by those standards, Pete Stark was well within bounds."

Something like that.

[EFerrari]

11. Precisely. n/t

[tabatha]

12. Another possible factor.

There is a nut running the country. She knows that.
Nuts can do lunatic things if pissed off.

[Spazito]

14. What her response translates to the general public is....

"no backbone", imo. The US public likes fighters and backing down doesn't sell well at all and that is what her "comment" is seen as doing. The public doesn't give a damn about her "role as speaker", they hear only that the Democrats backed down yet again.

She didn't have to rah-rah Mr. Stark, she simply had to stay silent on it, imo.

[EFerrari]

16. We should all try to summon the ghost of Tip O'Neill.

:)

[Spazito]

19. What astounds me is what part of the "Remember the Alamo" psychopathy

don't the Democrats get? The US public have been inculcated with the "fight to the end even when the odds are against you" belief and expect to see that in their politicians and when they see "oops, we're sorry" responses it translates as weak, the antithesis of what they believe, whether that belief is based on premises or right or wrong doesn't matter.

The public doesn't care about the nuances of "roles" of various politicians, they don't have time for that, imo, they care about their bills, their paycheck, their kids and, when they vote, a STRONG voice not a weak one.

[EFerrari]

22. Agree. And what happened to the person who labeled Bush

a "miserable failure"? :shrug:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

20. LAdies and Germs, Welcome to Political Theater.

Stark is playing his role. Pelosi is playing hers, to maintain a veneer of propriety.

Do you think that this stuff just happens randomly?

[EFerrari]

23. Good point. I've been calling it CSPAN Puppet Theater

but sometimes I forget and mistake it for real life. lol

[babylonsister]

30. Then we need more actors ASAP, and often, and what took them so long? nt

[MADem]

21. You'll probably get crapped on for saying that.

Even though you're right. I'm certain Pelosi agrees with Stark's anger and sentiment, but there are rules for the way one speaks on the floor, and Stark went over the line in that regard.

If he'd said what he said on the steps of the Cap, he would have been fine. It's the House chamber, though, where that propriety you noted must be observed.

[DeSwiss]

33. That "line" Stark supposedly crossed....

....was obliterated in the previous Republican-lead Congress, which was initiated by Bush/Cheney. Along with a certain number of our rights. Not to mention all the violations of law that sent a previous Repuke president running for cover, pleading his case that he still wasn't a crook. But Bush violates the law with impunity and makes the whole Congress look like a bunch of saps while doing it. Yeah, I understand why Pete's pissed.

As for propriety, there's nothing more obscene than soldiers dying in a bullshit war that didn't have to be. If civility will stop it, I'll be the first to set out the tea and crumpets. Otherwise, to hell with propriety if we want to save what's left of our Consttution....

IMHO

DeSwiss

[MADem]

36. I don't buy the "They acted like assholes, so we can too" argument.

I DO think the guy should have said what he said, but in Statuary Hall or on the steps, or at a presser in his office, or in front of the National Press Club, or on Faux/MSGOP/CIANN news network doing a talking head bit.

I just think he picked the WRONG venue. He ended up tossing a bone to the GOP, because his remarks took over the news cycle and his purpose was consequently obscured.

Look at how MURTHA moved the ball forward. He held a PRESS CONFERENCE.

He didn't stand up on the floor of the House, he called reporters, said "BIG ANNOUNCEMENT, ya better SHOW UP with TV cameras" and he did his thing. And that single press conference by a pro-military, conservative Democrat did more to change sentiment on the war than any protests did.

It's not just propriety, it's EFFECTIVENESS. Stark's effort, unlike Murtha's, was ineffective.

[DeSwiss]

37. As for Murtha....

....I'd agree that the ball has been moved. But forward? His "long-ago presser" did indeed begin to change perceptions about Iraq, but we're still there. And its only gotten worse. And George still HAS the ball. So if this is forward, then maybe we need to try another direction. And as politicians go, Murtha's cred was his background as a soldier, but as a rep, his main claim to fame is pork. I'd prefer Stark delivering this message.

And since when did the Repukes require our comments to tell lies on their teevee networks? We could say anything, like "its raining outside" and they'd somehow turn that into an argument that we're irreligious because we hate god's rain, or something. When your principle arguments are built upon lies, lies are the only thing one can add to it. So Stark's comments wouldn't have changed that. They would have simply picked someone's else's comments to elicit a diatribe against. At least this time they'd end up repeating what he said and paradoxically telling the truth themselves.

It may be unusual these days to hear the truth being spoken in Congress, but not unprecedented. So I don't buy the argument that there's such a thing as a WRONG venue in which the truth should be spoken.

But that's just me....

[MADem]

38. What Murtha did was make it OK for conservatives to hoist the Bullshit Flag.

That was step one.

And it was an important step--even the GOP are abandoning the sinking ship in droves, desperately trying to distance themselves from BushCo.

And the fact that Murtha's claim to fame was pork--PENTAGON pork--actually made the moral argument stronger for him--even he'd had enough.

Certainly, it isn't happening as fast as we might like. But it is happening. I do think there's a desire to ensure that BushCo OWNS this war, but the fact remains that we can't end it without the GOP--we don't have the votes.

And there's nothing wrong with the truth being spoken in Congress.

It's just that there are methods of address, which seem rather arcane but they are rooted in history and tradition. You can speak compellingly, but you have to stay within those guidelines--Robert Byrd, on the Senate side, does it frequently. The way Stark made those comments ensured, even though he probably didn't think that far ahead, that the coverage would be about his method of address, and not the content.

[DeSwiss]

39. Had I been the one speaking....

....I probably wouldn't have used the word "amusement" either. But I would have still questioned Bush's sanity.

That's what needs to happen because as long as the American people see and hear the administration acting in this manner, and in absolute defiance of the Constitution, and Congress doing nothing about it, it becomes the norm.

Repukes are now indeed trying to runaway from Bush and the Iraq war, but Murtha was only a part of that process. But the Dems haven't followed through and kept the pressure on. And applied the heat directly on the main actors -- Bush/Cheney. Government emails are "lost." Clear violations of the law are pardoned. Subpoenas are ignored, and Executive Branch officials defy summons to appear before Congressional committees. There is "no civility" when the civil procedures and laws are blatantly ignored. They are in effect telling Congress to "go fuck yourselves."

Stark's comments hopefully will begin to turn the focus on the nutcases in the WH. Every Congress, indeed every group of any kind ALWAYS NEEDS a Pete Stark. Someone who refuses to pretend that the Emperor is wearing clothes. Someone who'll deliver the unvarnished truth. I applaud him for his courage.

The idea that Bush finds amusement in all this should have been accompanied by the vid of his joking around about not being able to find WMDs -- all the while soldiers were dying and being blown to bits by IEDs, because they were sent to a country to find those same threatening WMDs Bush found funny enough to makes jokes about. And then after showing the vid then he should have asked: "is this what a sane person would do?"

In the end, the questioning of Bush's sanity and illegal acts must be addressed. Nothing that anyone's done so far (read: the Democrats) seems to be having any effect. So trying the truth seems a logical approach. The best approach.

No political pabulum. No guessing. No molly-coddling. Just truth...

[mike_c]

24. nancy's "role" is to stand up to those toads....

I'll have a lot more respect for her graciousness when she couples it with some steel.

[sss1977]

25. until she allows for impeachment....

...proceedings to begin, she's not doing her job. 'Nuff said.

[lastliberalintexas]

26. So you turned your response to me into a separate thread?

Then I'll again point out that your view of her position is naive and narrow. Pelosi is Speaker of the House, which means that she controls the agenda, sets the debate, allows legislation to proceed or not and basically sets the calendar in the House. It is not her job to make the opposition party happy or to worry about their feelings, it is her job to ensure that her party's agenda and platform are enacted by her chamber. She's done a rather poor job, and can only point to a few achievements such as the minimum wage vote. Good Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate have to be assholes, propriety be damned.


And as I stated in the other thread, Pelosi would do well to attend the LBJ School of Politics. Then she would learn what it truly means to rule a chamber of Congress.

[backscatter712]

27. Fuck Pelosi and fuck comity.

Pelosi's a quisling, and comity is dead in this country. As far as I'm concerned, it's a cold civil war between us and the freepers, of whatever party they claim to belong to.

You think the Republicans give a shit what we think when they shoot off their mouths?

Do you think Rush gives a boil off his ass about our opinion when he refers to liberal troops as "phony soldiers?"

Does Ann Coulter even fire one neuron to consider us when she says the Jews need to be "perfected?"

Would Michelle Malkin give even the slightest nod to civility when she goes through the trash of the Frost family?

Does Bush give a flying fuck what 76% of the country thinks of him when he vetoes S-CHIP and threatens World War III?

Then why should we give a rat's ass what the GOP or even the quisling Democrats think when Stark said troops are dying for Bush's amusement?

Fuck them all.

[cboy4]

28. I don't think many people are buying your argument.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2091771

[Rosa Luxemburg]

29. aside, do you agree with what Stark said?

[JDPriestly]

32. Nancy Pelosi forgets what side she is on.

I think she is confused about her loyalties. She seems to side with the D.C. crowd and oppose the rest of the country crowd. After the years of insult and exclusion that Democrats have suffered at the hands of the Republican majority in Congress, after the attack on the Constitution wrought by the Republican majority, Democrats deserve leadership that stands up for Democrats and defends Democrats. Nancy Pelosi is serving us very poorly. She should resign as speaker and let a more courageous representative who will advocate for the interests of the American people have a turn. She has failed as speaker. I am very sorry to have to say that, but she has failed us. I suspect that this is her last term in the House.

[bbernardini]

35. "Part of her job is to try and promote an atmosphere of civil discourse, not personal attack."

Which will NEVER happen with the GOP in its current state, and will NOT change anytime soon. It's the whole "lipstick on a pig" thing.

[leftofthedial]

40. "propriety" is non sequitor

but she IS doing her job. By ensuring the reign of king george proceeds unimpeded by an opposition party, she is preserving the preeminent power and interest of her class.