I remember seeing a youtube clip where a girl stated that people are just afraid of a strong woman in a position of power, and supported her based on that notion. I am not afraid of a woman in a position of power in any way. Actually, I have great respect for Condoleezza Rice, Margaret Thatcher...even Hillary Clinton...to a certain extent. Where I am not a big fan her policies in the past, she is a force to be reckoned with. I have yet to see what she will do with her role in the State Department, but overall she seems to be doing a decent job.
As you can see, it’s not a woman thing. While Republicans are trying to make a big issues out of Sonia Sotomaors comments about white men, I can sort of understand where she comes from. I think that statement is being politicized to the point that it is just plain silly. But the aspect of white men in rolls of government is not particularly appealing to me. First, qualified people should be put into positions of government based on their qualifications, and not their race or sex. Those aspects seem irrelevant to me. I would much rather see people from all walks of life (though qualified) in public office because it offers better viewpoints by bringing to light opinions that would be more representative of our nation.
I need to make an exception to that disgusting excuse of a human being Nancy Pelosi. This is a rather interesting story about one my state representative’s attempts to contact Pelosi to further pursue what she wants to do about and further brings to light her calling the CIA a bunch of liars who misled her.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cantor-complains-pelosi-refuses-to-meet-with-him-2009-06-08.html
First watch this, where she boasts about the need for bipartisanship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFM44iiQczc
Here she claims that being bipartisan is owed to the American people, and such should be sought after by all representatives. But the big problem, according to her, is the Republicans are “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented that has no interest in the 1 in 5 children living in poverty in America.”*** Further into is, she stated that with the Democratic congress, she didn’t want its legacy to be that of a partisan nature-but of a more civil one.
The article from “thehill.com” goes to explain that Cantor’s inquiries to Pelosi’s office to see if she should receive further intelligence briefings. Which I think would be good to have some sort of official response in light of her outright accusation of calling the CIA liars who misled her on enhanced interrogations. What her, and her office, has done is “[Cantor] have put in requests to meet with her and have yet to be responded to.” Her not wanting to talk about the issue any further does not cut it. "I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BCGD80&show_article=1
So I guess this is Pelosi in action. I recall it being in the news and then that witch stated she’d not comment on it again...then off to China she went. Not much else has been said. I think the damage has been done and she needs to be held accountable for her official statements on the matter. She called the CIA liars. It’s as simple as that. She needs to be held accountable for her rhetoric. She has no excuse to weasel her way out of that one.
*** In a previous quote I had included “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented that has no interest in the 1 in 5 children living in poverty in America” because I need to point something out regarding those evil “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented” folks. I want to post some facts on that. Simply broken down, Republicans give more to charity than Democrats. Where a Republican will choose to “put their hand in their pocket” and generously donate to charities overall, the Democrat ethos seems to be more geared towards taking money out of someone else’s pocket and make a welfare program.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
I could not state it better: “The moral of that story is that when it comes to charitable giving - whether you’re talking time and/or money, conservatives beat liberals hands down - in spite of how often liberals wail about “mean-spirited conservatives” who hate the poor/elderly/sick, etc so much that they want to “deprive” them.”
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/04/16/why-isnt-joe-biden-more-generous-with-his-own-money-than-mine/
Lastly, in her video she stated the “3 C’s,” one of them being her prioritization of her constituents. She has burned some bridges there. For example, see Cindy Sheehan’s run for congress as an Independent in opposition to Pelosi (interesting video to): http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Sheehan_announces_independent_run_against_Pelosi_0809.html
Nancy Pelosi: the extreme moderate
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-fairbanks15apr15,0,6422702.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
While angering some of the more extreme anti-war types is one thing, as speaker of the house need not be calling the CIA liars and then NOT effectively explain herself. Her statement of refusal to talk about the issue further even makes her actions more disgusting. She has no credibility what so ever.
They should water board the truth out of her.
