Sunday, April 29, 2012

San Fran Nan Explains The Parties

I just got my weekly e-mail from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (former Queen of the House of Representatives). I look forward to her missals each week because she is a genius at clarifying and elucidating the important issues of the day while explaining why Republicans are evil and Democrats are the Good Samaritans. This week she explained the difference between the parties in simple terms, comprehensible to even the most ignorant of voters.

You see, Republicans are only concerned with subsidies for big oil, while Democrats only wish to prevent breast cancer. It’s as clear as earlier Democratic slogans such as “food, not bombs” and “make love, not war.” Says Nancy: “Their priority is to protect the subsidies for Big Oil (capital letters are hers), while our priority is to prevent breast cancer, cervical cancer, to immunize children, so that they are healthy. It’s survival to women. And that just goes to show you what a luxury Speaker Boehner thinks it is to have good health care for women.”

Pelosi is of course doing a head fake to keep the public from noticing that the House Republicans had just passed a paid-for student debt relief bill which the Senate won’t even take up and which the president has vowed to veto if it ever reaches him. Bring the topic back to the “war on women” and the public will miss another Democratic stall tactic to prevent any worthwhile legislation from being passed.

She also muddied the facts by giving credit to Obama for the proposed legislation while blaming the Republicans for ruining it by proposing spending cuts to pay for the cost of buoying up the student loans—all in the name of the war on women. “Thankfully, our president went out, made the pitch to the American people with such clarity that the Republicans are now changing their mind and coming back and saying ‘okay we won’t have it (the loan interest rate) go from 3.4% to 6.8%, but in order to pay for it we’re going to make an assault on women’s health—make another assault on women’s health, continue our assault on women’s health.’” (Just in case you didn’t get it—it’s an assault on women’s health.)

And then came one of those brilliant Pelosi stream of consciousness clarifications of her beliefs: “We will not support a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul, which ostensibly supports a middle-class initiative on making those very same people pay for it. I don’t know what it is that the Republicans have against the idea that there’s a positive role that we can do in a public-private way to make America healthier. That a women’s [sic.]health is central to the health of her family, they consider it a slush fund to pay for women’s health. We consider it an absolute necessity and that’s the difference here.” Ah, now I understand. Don’t you?

What the genius from Sodom by the Bay was talking about (at least I think it’s what she was talking about) is the Republican plan to pay for the lower student government-insured loan rates with $17 billion saved in cuts to the prevention and public health fund portions of the Obamacare monstrosity. That would save $5.9 billion on the loans rates with the rest of the savings going to other needed government functions..

When asked about her “war on women” rhetoric and side-stepping of the issue of Obama multi-trillion dollar deficits, Pelosi insisted that it was not political posturing to go ballistic over $6 billion. “I don’t see it as any posturing. $6 billion is $6 billion.” In fact, it was so important that she already has the answer to the problem: “We say, okay, we want to pay for it (that would be a refreshing departure for Democrats), and we can pay for it by going to subsidies for big oil and gas. And what we see here is what are the priorities of the parties in Washington DC?”

She continues the stream-of-consciousness with: “We say big oil (small letters this time) and gas get subsidies to have incentives to drill so that they can make probably $1 trillion over the next ten years. Certainly, we could spare some of that money for the student loan—reducing the student loan interest. But the Republicans say No! Leave the subsidies for big oil intact and let’s take it out of our old favorite target: women’s health. And that’s just wrong.”

I haven’t heard that kind of clarity of thought since a college sophomore friend of mine got roaring-drunk and tried to explain quantum physics to me in five minutes. It’s easy to dismiss the ramblings of this botoxed beauty as insignificant. But we must remember that she is still the majority leader of the House Democrats, and speaks for the powers-that-be in that party.

26 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

She is the poster child for term limits. I wonder why she didn't talk about Womyn's Health issues? Does she hate womyn now?

Tennessee Jed said...

"She's just an uptown girl . . . and she's livin' in her uptown world" (ooh waah)

AndrewPrice said...

She's a dingbat, that's for sure. And the idea that the Republican want to make people unhealthy is just more brain-dead stupidity on her part. I doubt anyone listens to her rhetoric anymore.

BevfromNYC said...

DON'T LOOK AT OBAMA'S RECORD. LOOK OVER HERE!! THERE IS A WAR ON WOMEN...Obama is losing...WAR ON WOMEN, WAR ON WOMEN...Obama is still losing...WAR ON WOMEN!...it's not working...OBAMA KILLED BIN LADEN AND BUSH DIDN'T AND ROMNEY COULDN'T!

Sadly, I think some women are just too stupid to see the subtext. Sad comment on my own sex.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
Every time she opens her mouth I think strongly of scheduling a root canal or colonoscopy. Any thing to over write the exposure to your Senator.

T-Rav said...

Nancy Pelosi has got to be one of the least self-aware humans on the planet. I'm pretty sure I've met amphibians with more common sense and integrity than she has. Give her credit, though: She seems capable of intimidating her party colleagues enough for them not to dump her as leader, even when it became obvious (as it did long ago) that they needed to ditch her.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I'm sort of surprised she didn't do that. Maybe she couldn't spell it.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: And in San Francisco, uptown is actually up. The rich live at the top of the hills and the rest of us live on the sides and at the bottom of the hills. She lives in Presidio Heights (as opposed to Pacific Heights or Seacliff). I lived on Nob Hill, but if I had lived any farther down the side of the hill, it would have been Nob Gulch. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Debbie Does Dallas is even more obnoxious than Pelosi (if such a thing is possible). Hilary Rosen remains an outlier who writes idiotic speeches rather than delivering them most of the time. But when she does deliver one, she's right up there with the other two. And unlike the other two, Rosen doesn't have to run for office every two years, so she can do her nefarious deeds year round.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: And yet she remains the House minority leader. If we do everything right in November, she'll be the leader of the smallest left-wing Democratic rump party in memory.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Could you believe that one sentence in which she repeated the war on women mantra three times! She must assume the rest of us are as brain-dead as she is.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: She is my former Representative. I'd rather have an appendectomy without anesthesia than listen to my Senators--Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Since you live in Tehachapi, California, I hate to break the bad news to you, but they're your Senators too.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Amen. She has absolutely no sense of just how completely nonsensical her babblings are. I used to call her The Representative from Cuisinart. Her speeches all sound like the words first went into a food processor.

Individualist said...

Lawhawk

I am confused last week it was support Big Breasts or prvent oil build up.....

What really gets me about this whole war on women nonsense is that it is sch complete sophistry that one needs five minutes and a power point slide presentation just to understand the arguments being made.

If this is going to be the state of coverage by the MSM then I feel sorry for the nation. As to subsidies for Big Oil... What Subsidies. Big Oil in thiws country is being shut down by this administration. There is no way you are getting six billion out of them to begin with.

BevfromNYC said...

You know, they'd get a lot more mileage out of "Big Breast" rather than using "War On Women"! LOL!

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: Don't confuse us with the facts. The Democrats are switching gears so fast, and attempting so many fake plays that even they don't know what their position will be tomorrow. The war on women meme is the same obfuscation as calling abortion "choice." The only war here is the one on profligate spending and forced participation in programs which offend the religious beliefs and shock the conscience of a major portion of the American population.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: If the Democrats successfully turn this into a Republican war on big breasts, we will lose most of the male vote. Don't give them any ideas.

BevfromNYC said...

Yeah, I see what you mean:
DON'T LOOK AT OBAMA'S RECORD. LOOK OVER HERE!! THERE IS A WAR ON BIG BREASTS...Obama is losing...BIG BREASTS, BIG BREAST...Hmmm, we're on to something...BIG BREASTS!...hey it's working. We don't even need bin Laden anymore...

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I can't wait to see those ads on TV.

Individualist said...

So will the spokeswoman be Dolly Pardon or Elvira Mistress of the Dark

T-Rav said...

I totally want to see Democrats spin this election as a GOP war on women AND big breasts. The mental whiplash from that should have an enormous death toll.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: I vote for Dolly, but only because it's been so long since I've seen Elvira. Elvira does sarcasm better than Dolly.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Not to mention the chaos it would cause in the LGBT community (did I miss some of the letters?).

tryanmax said...

LawHawk, I would lay dollars to donuts that the roaring-drunk dime-primer on quantum physics was more coherent than San Fran Nan on her most sober day. But, of course, you would have to tell me.

I just don't know where Pelosi gets off supporting Big Pharma and Big Medical the way she does. I mean, just think of the tremendous windfall Big Health Insurance will get from all those government subsidized mammograms. (Nobody tell Nan that vast amounts of petroleum are used in the creation of synthetic hormones which make birth control possible.)


Being a granola girl, I would have bet for sure that Nan believed in homeopathic acupuncture aroma la-stone therapy and water births in mud huts and so forth. The exception, of course, is abortion, which is such a safe procedure that it must be performed in a sterile medical environment.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: I'm not sure his explanation was very good, but at least he spoke in grammatical, logical, coherent sentences (if a bit slurred).

You must remember, rules about windfall profits apply to everyone else. When you're part of the ruling elite, you're performing a public service for which you should be amply rewarded.

She believes in any kind of medicine that she can get the taxpayers to pay for and the non-taxpayers to use.

K said...

Re: "War on Women"

Of course, the Republicans could counter with the long time Democratic war on the family. Perhaps with 41 percent of the births coming out of wedlock they don't think that's a winning strategy?

Post a Comment