Friday, December 14, 2007

Quisling Pelosi

Some more militant Democrats are accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of "caving" to Republicans. I'll be the first to admit that Pelosi and her colleagues are an utter and complete failure, which is why Congress has an 11% approval rating. Pelosi-ever true to form-is blaming the minority for the fact that she, Steny Hoyer, and their entire band of merry thugs have so disgraced themselves:

"The assumption that I made...that Republicans would see the light...was an
inaccurate one," she allowed.

Let me get the straight: The 2006 General Election turned on a few thousand votes in a few key precincts in marginal districts, and this woman thinks we are all supposed to play follow the leader? Apparently, Ms. Pelosi forgets what Congress' national approval rating is, and that if it remains that low in an election year she will be far less likely to retain her Speaker's chair. She also forgets that a whole lot of this country still voted Republican and sent Republicans to Congress by hefty margins of victory, yet the San Francisco Treat thinks we all owe it to her to do things her way. I did not send my Republican Congressman to Washington to see Nancy Pelosi's light, or anything else of Pelosi's to be seen.

Yet the Democrats tell us "wait till next year." Yes indeed-wait for more quisling cowardice from a woman who has done nothing for the last 12 months but disgrace the Office of Speaker of the House and the Republic itself. I am quite glad the Democrats elected this woman, for she may be the Republicans' guarantee of Congressional victory in 2008.

Did my Democratic friends really expect this woman to be a feminine version of Sam Rayburn or Tip O'Neill? She is unworthy to so much as sit in the same chair, let alone roam the same halls or breathe the same air as those great statesmen. She does have one attribute that makes her stand alone compared to those hallowed old Democratic predecessors: She is WEAK-WEAK-WEAK!



At Friday, December 14, 2007 11:22:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

David must be back in the saddle! I love it and truer words are not found sir!

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 1:02:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...


A couple of things:

1) Don't assume that the low approval rating of Congress is solely due to the Democrats. Having a majority doesn't necessarily equate to being at fault for a low approval rating. I don't doubt that they're at fault for some of it, but the Republicans in Congress aren't exactly popular right now, either.

2) While some areas of the country did vote Republican in 2006 -- and some candidates did win by large margins -- there were areas of Democrat victory where no such victory should have ever happened. Sherrod Brown's victory here in Ohio is one of those instances, the Republican scandal here in Ohio notwithstanding.

Our problem is this -- some areas where Republicans, up to 2006, had been traditionally elected have been lost because of people growing tired of what Republicans in Washington are offering us. I can't say that I'm not one of those people. And if the Party doesn't watch out, that trend is going to continue...maybe even get worse.

The low Congressional approval rating won't automatically lead to a swing back to the Republicans. If anything, it will just mean that different Democrats get elected.

3) I agree in principle with what you're trying to say about Pelosi, but I disagree with the tack you are tacking. Some of the comments are just mean-spirited, and it almost seems as if you're implying that no woman should hold the post that Pelosi currently does. I could be wrong on that -- and I pray that I am -- but your words seem to take me in that direction, especially your post's last sentence.


At Saturday, December 15, 2007 1:45:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

No woman the likes of Pelosi should ever hold the office. I'm not taking back one solitary word of what I said-not one. You may take from it whatever you like.

I know you mean well, but frankly, I don't care anymore who doesn't like what I think. I am back to being my fight-the-Left-to-my-last-breath self. I've never voted for a Democrat, I never will, and I am damn proud of it.

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:28:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Margaret Thatcher for Speaker!

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:20:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...


If that's true, I applaud you for taking that stance. That's just the type of thing I've been hoping you would say. For quite a while, it had seemed as though you did care, that you were trying too hard to please too many people.

Your criticisms of me in the late summer and the fall hit me hard for this very reason -- because that's the attitude that I've tried to exude. I don't care what other people think, especially those on the Left, but also those who are not true to the Right. And I'm going to say what needs to be said, whether people like it or not.

We can't get what we want by playing nicey-nicey and trying to be friends with everyone.

You know, I've dearly missed the true you -- the old you -- the person that I could discuss (or argue) anything with at length and know that I was getting someone 100% real. Agree or disagree, I could ALWAYS respect you, and that was very dear to me because it's very rare in a person.

And that's one of the reasons I wanted you to be Nolan's godfather. It's important to me for him to learn to be unwavering, to be firm and true to his beliefs, to command respect -- and not by trying to please everyone but rather by always being HIM, not what someone else wants him to be.

So, if you're once again ready to take the fight to the Left, I'm there with you. We both know how critical the next 11 months are to the future of our nation, and as much as possible must be done to ensure that the day is won next November.

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:29:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

By the way, David, you're right about who's got the upper hand in the Republican race at the moment.

Huckabee's rise and popularity, especially given what's come out about him in recent days, is just inexplicable to me.

All I can say is that I sincerely pray that Republican voters come to their senses -- or that there are a lot of undecideds out there -- within the next 20 days.

If not, the Party is likely to end up with buyer's remorse very similar to -- if not greater than -- that of the voters who ushered in the Democrat majority in 2006.

As a pastor, I would like to think that Huckabee would not lie (or even bend the truth) to us. But his record as Arkansas Governor is difficult to ignore, and I'm sure it's of concern to you as it is to me.

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:34:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

The point of my civility argument is that you can take the fight to the enemy without being an arse about it.

Now, on the other hand, there are always going to be those in the Party Opposite who view any hard-scrabble fight as "intolerance" or "bigotry" or God knows what else. I have had it up to here with that group of people. It took a Democrat takeover of the Congress and everything that has resulted for me to see an example of just what I do NOT want our country to become.

The fight never left me, I've just taken the fight to another level. This isn't a political fight, it is a cultural fight, too. In one sense, we are still fighting and winning in our Party when all the candidates are having to kiss are rear end.

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:40:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Huckabee: Obviously, I have issues with the man, but if he is the nominee, I am willing to give him a chance on this score: He is absolutely pro-life, he will appoint good judges, and I seriously doubt it is possible to screw things up more than Bush did-and Bush appointed great judges (which alone made me glad I voted for Bush).

I am not quite ready to say that Huckabee will be the nominee, though-I actually think we are in for a good hard slog, and I am not sure we can know anything for sure jusy yet.

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:48:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

Re: Huckabee

You might be surprised. Aside from the judges, one thing that Bush certainly has going for him is that he absolutely refuses to give in to the Democrats at all. And God only knows how, but he still largely gets what he wants despite the absence of political capital and despite the fact that he's got 1 year left in office.

I could be willing to give Huckabee a chance, but my fear is that he'll repeat his actions as Governor and give a liberal Congress everything they want. I have grave reservations about his ability to stand up to a group that wants big-time tax hikes, universal health care, etc.

Obviously, if he's the nominee, then I have to pray very hard that I'm wrong and that those concerns will never bear fruit.

Let's just say that I hope it doesn't come to that. Hopefully, we'll get a good fight and either Thompson will survive long enough to get the support of McCain and a few others, and hopefully that will be enough to win the day.

And boy, would I ever love to be in Iowa for the caucuses...

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 5:06:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

Governors do tend to do things differently once they get to the White House-remember that.

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 11:43:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...


That's true -- although I don't have to remind you about the last experience that we had with a former Arkansas governor in the White House. And that governor was eminently more popular in his own state than Mr. Huckabee is.

At this time, the way I see it is this -- a vote for Huckabee is akin to playing Russian Roulette with a piston that has a half-full chamber. Nothing bad may happen, but do you really want to take the chance?

But...honestly, my biggest problem with Huckabee is how he has handled recent negative press, such as the Wayne Dumond scandal, his ignorance about the Iran NIE report, and his comments about AIDS patients, gays, and Mormons.

As Mitt Romney has said, there is no perfect candidate. Each one of them has made a mistake, including saying things they would rather take back in hindsight.

Unfortunately, Huckabee seems to strongly prefer to not take responsibility tor mistakes that he's made and things that he said. Rather than accept blame and apologize, he either chooses to outright deny, deflect blame to others, or claim that the problem is caused by people attacking him because he's in the lead.

These behaviors are VERY Clinton-esque, and they just amplify what is unlikable about him.

Huckabee is entitled to his opinions, to be sure, but he MUST appear informed and intelligent. He also must realize that he's running for President of all of America, not just the Christian part. He talks about being a uniter, so he needs to reach out to everyone. And he simply must be able to effectively answer questions about his actions as Governor, something he has NOT done thus far.

Honestly, I think Democrats are just chomping at the bit for him to get the nomination. If you believe Drudge, their actively hoping he does and are willing to hold off attacks until that happens. That's not good. Adding Rollins to his campaign was very good for him -- but he's got to get better.

I'm willing to be reasonable...but he has got a LOT of negatives for me; more so than Giuliani and Romney, and almost as many as the Democrats running. It's his responsibility to alleviate those. It's not mine to ignore them.

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wonderful give and take. Makes me realize there are to few true conservatives and too many in name only republicans.

At Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:09:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

I find Huckabee more tolerable that Romney or Giuliani, and Romney infinitely more tolerable than Giuliani-IMHO.

At Sunday, December 16, 2007 2:43:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...


Would you care to explain why that is, especially in light of some of the things that have come to light about Huckabee in recent days/weeks and in light of his record as Governor of Arkansas?

Also, it seems that you have faith that Huckabee's Presidency would be different than his Governorship, yet you don't seem to hold that same belief about Romney. Is there a particular reason for that?

(I don't have much faith that either's Presidency will be different, honestly.)

And finally, have you given thought to what will happen if Huckabee ends up in the White House and his Presidency is NOT different from his Governorship? And, if so, what do you believe will be the repercussions for such an event?

Please note that I'm trying very hard to be reasonable here. You've said in the past that I need to be able to support the Republican nominee, whomever that may be. However, because I refuse to support ANYONE blindly (and I know about blindness), the above questions are some that I'd like to have answered.


At Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:17:00 PM, Blogger Rick said...

None of the Republican candidates have the credentials to be President. Especially Hucakbee. You have see where he came from to understand how he can stand before the American public and lie about his conservative fiscal policy.

* Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).
* He supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).
* He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).
* He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).
* He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).
* He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03).
* In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).

When Huckabee left office there was almost a $1B surplus yet he didn't want to reduce the sales tax on food. Indicates that his claim to keep the Bush tax cuts has little merit.

The main stream media is directing this election to get the candidate from both parties that will continue the leftist agenda.

At Monday, December 17, 2007 4:45:00 AM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

First, let me begin by saying that if Mitt Romney is the nominee in the fall, he will have my support.

Now to what separates Romney and Huckabee in my opinion: Motivation to public service.

In the Democratic Party, the great dynastic families are the Kennedys in the East and the Udalls in the West. Among Republicans, the great remaining dynastic family is the Romney family. Mitt Romney's father was the former Governor of Michigan, and George Romney was one of the leading anti-Goldwater stalwarts at the 1964 Convention. Mitt's mother ran for U.S. Senate from Michigan as a moderate-to-liberal Republican. He has had relatives run for office in both Michigan and Utah over the last 30+ years. The Romneys (and by extension the Pratts) have roots in the GOP going back to the 1850's when Mitt Romney's Great-Great Grandfather Parley Pratt was a member of the Utah Territorial Legislature.

That is a fine and proud heritage from a personal perspective, but Mitt Romney's way of carrying it on has been to "shop around" for winable political seats. Rather than pay his political dues the way many of his anscestors did, Mitt Romney has done whatever he could to try and find the easiest political victory. Before running for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he also considered running for Governor of Utah. He seriously considered office in Michigan, too.

While I understand that in this day and age people move around (I certainly have), at some point you have to put down roots somewhere and say "this is my home and community" if you are going to enter public life the RIGHT way (let the people nurture your political career instead of JUST your name or money), and Mitt Romney has never done that in his life. There is nothing wrong with coming from a fine political family-I come from a political family on my mother's side. One of the things you learn if you do have family in politics (and they teach you right) is that everyone has to "pay their dues." Mitt Romney has never paid his.

Contrast Romney with Mike Huckabee: Baptist preacher, President of the Arkansas Baptist Convention who ran for U.S. Senate in 1992 and lost, then ran for Lieutenant Governor in a special election in 1993 (after Lt. Governor Jim Guy Tucker became Governor replacing Bill Clinton) in a shocking upset. He didn't expect to be Governor, but Tucker resigned in disgrace in 1996 after a federal conviction in the Whitewater Affair (Remember that?) and Huckabee became Governor. Because he was serving out an unexpired term, he ran for Governor in his own right in 1998 and won, and in 2002 was re-elected. He left office as the third-longest serving Governor in Arkansas history-not expecting to be there to begin with. Huckabee has taken his licks, paid his political dues, and earned his current place in Republican politics by the verdict of the people of Arkansas. One-term Romney didn't run again because he would have been beaten badly-gone would be his Presidential hopes...see the difference? Despite my reservations about Huckabee (and they are many), I believe he entered politics to serve the people. I think Mitt Romney entered politics just to be in politics.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map