...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

July 01, 2005

What A Freaking Idiot

And i don't mean idiot in the sense of a person with whom i have a disagreement.

i mean literally, an idiot, a person of subnormal intelligence, slow-witted, an imbecile, a moron, a cretin, affected by a profound mental retardation.


i want to post in full this exchange between Nancy Pulaski and a reporter, reprinted by The Corner, so i can refer back to it whenever i need a good laugh.

Reporter: Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.

Two questions. What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Ms. Pelosi: As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision.

Reporter: Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.

Ms. Pelosi: Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.

Reporter: Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi: It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Reporter: Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi: The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

She totally misunderstood the question, even after the reporter explained it to her again in an extremely polite way. It's obvious that the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives had no clue about a recent, highly publicized and important Supreme Court decision. Or what her fellow legislators were trying to do about it. No fucking clue.

If i wasn't so disgusted by Pelosi, and the fact that the House Democrats consider her fit to be their leader, i would almost feel sorry for her. She's so completely in over her head, it's a joke.

Posted by annika, Jul. 1, 2005 | TrackBack (1)
Rubric: The Huh? Files & annikapunditry


She is the sort of politician that rotten buroughs produce. Dull children of orthodoxy. It's hard to find Republicans this dumb, but there are a few out there. It's more glaring with the D's because all you've needed to play for their team for two generations is absolute fealty to the shiboleths of liberalism and union thugery.

Posted by: Casca on Jul. 1, 2005

She doesn't seem very bright, and is usually semi-belligerant. She just parrots the same phrases, the same slogans, over and over. It's like dealing with a 1950s robot.

Posted by: Mark on Jul. 2, 2005

just another braying nabob of negativism. no plan, no program, no future in politics. just sit there all wide eyed and bray and bitch!

Posted by: bill on Jul. 2, 2005

Hey Annie, why complain?

Nancy Pelosi, along with Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Howard Dean,John Kerry and now Dick Durbin are the reason that the Democrats have become and will remain the semi-permanent minority in the United States Congress.

You want some smart ones to take over and replace them?

Bill Clinton is a smart one; look what he did to us. Be care ful what you wish for.

Let sleeping dogs lie.

I love Nancy Pelosi, long may she remain the Minority Leader.

Posted by: shelly on Jul. 2, 2005

Both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Washington Post cleaned up her remarks so that she moved above the cretin level.
Just as MSM ignored Dick Durban's remarks for a whole week until he apologized.

MSM protects its own. That's how those idiots stay in power.

(Via Betsy's Page)

Posted by: Jake on Jul. 2, 2005

Oy. Vay.

She is allowed to vote on issues that impact our lives!

Sometimes it's really embarassing to be a Caleeefornyuhn.

Posted by: tallglassofmilk on Jul. 2, 2005

i can't get past....in one response; dragging in the separation of church and state; accusing repubs of not understanding the principle; and in the next response, equating a scotus decision to that of a deity.
i don't get it.

Posted by: louielouie on Jul. 2, 2005

Until seeing Pelosi, I thought California could never elect a politician with a lower IQ than Boxer.

Posted by: gcotharn on Jul. 2, 2005

gcotharn..didn't you mean to say "a lower IQ than *a* Boxer", referring to the breed of dog?

Posted by: David Foster on Jul. 2, 2005

My favorite quote in that exchange:

"So this is almost as if God has spoken."

Ah, those filthy statist liberals never cease to amaze me with their connivances.

Posted by: reagan80 on Jul. 3, 2005