President Pelosi (how does that sound)

[xrayzebra]

The cast of characters
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Send an email to Thomas Sowell



Perhaps nothing so captures the superficial, frivolous and irresponsible spirit of our times like the sudden boomlet for Barack Obama as a candidate for President of the United States.

He is a bright, personable and articulate young man but what has he ever actually accomplished that would qualify him for the highest office in the nation and the leadership of the free world?


U.S. Democratic Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) speaks at a rally in support of Democratic California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides in Los Angeles October 27, 2006. Angelides faces incumbent California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in the November 7 election. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson (UNITED STATES)

This is no criticism of Senator Obama. He has been in the Senate only a couple of years. Maybe a decade from now he will have crafted enough important legislation, or distinguished himself in some other way, as to be someone worth considering for President. But today, just because he is fluent, smooth and black?

Similarly for Congressman Harold Ford, who is running for the Senate in Tennessee. However moderate he may seem, his election could turn the Senate over to extremists like Ted Kennedy & Co.

Both Ford and Obama are probably better than most Congressional Democrats, but that is a very small claim in a high-tax party that has been irresponsible on national defense for decades and has fought against even modest attempts to control illegal immigration.

Contrary to what you might think from the way the media cover politics, elections are not about the careers of politicians but about the fate of the country. That fate is definitely on the line now with a nuclear Iran and a nuclear North Korea looming over our children's future.

The time is long overdue to get serious about the caliber of people to whom power and responsibility are to be entrusted. That is especially important if and when the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives after this election.

They can be vague about their agenda but they can't hide the facts about who will stand to wield power if they take over the House.

Everyone seems to be talking about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as a new Speaker of the House after this year's elections. But is anyone interested in what she has actually done in the past, as a guide to what to expect from her in a powerful position that also puts her next in line to become President of the United States after the Vice President?

On immigration, Congresswoman Pelosi voted against tightening border security. Current House Speaker Dennis Hastert voted for it -- and also led the fight that stopped the Senate amnesty bill from gaining approval in the House of Representatives.

On taxes, Congresswoman Pelosi has paid no attention to their actual economic consequences and instead repeated the standard Democrat's line about "tax cuts for the wealthiest few, causing red ink as far as the eye can see."

Cuts in tax rates have been followed by increases -- repeat, increases -- in tax revenues. This has happened not only during this administration but also as far back as the Kennedy administration.

Red ink comes from runaway spending, which can always exceed any increases in revenues. When a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to cut federal spending on welfare, Pelosi voted against it.

Upper income earners -- most of whom are not rich -- have in fact paid more total taxes after the rates were cut because these cuts have spurred economic growth and higher incomes. But to admit this would be to abandon the twin pillars of liberalism, higher tax rates and class warfare rhetoric.

As regards the war on terrorism and the terrorists' war against the west, Nancy Pelosi has opposed having international phone calls to and from terrorists monitored by American intelligence agencies.

The liberal spin is that this is "domestic spying" when someone on one end of the line is within the United States. Pelosi also doesn't think we are treating terrorists nice enough at Guantanamo. She wants to give them "rights" that neither the Constitution nor the Geneva convention gives them.

This is from someone who, as Speaker of the House, would be two heartbeats away from becoming President of the United States. We can only hope that the President and Vice President never travel in the same car or fly on the same plane.


====================

Posted without comment.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gee when is the last time that happened? When both the President and VP have died?

[George Gervin's Afro]

The liberal spin is that this is "domestic spying" when someone on one end of the line is within the United States. Pelosi also doesn't think we are treating terrorists nice enough at Guantanamo. She wants to give them "rights" that neither the Constitution nor the Geneva convention gives them.

This is from someone who, as Speaker of the House, would be two heartbeats away from becoming President of the United States. We can only hope that the President and Vice President never travel in the same car or fly on the same plane.


Hey ray get a warrant and the govt can listen to anyone they want.

[ChumpDumper]

He is a bright, personable and articulate young man but what has he ever actually accomplished that would qualify him for the highest office in the nation and the leadership of the free world?I asked the same about George W Bush, and he was not bright, personable, articulate nor particularly young either.

And Rumsfeld is currently in the line of Presidential succession. That's rich.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I asked the same about George W Bush, and he was not bright, personable, articulate nor particularly young either.

And Rumsfeld is currently in the line of Presidential succession. That's rich.


how many heartbeats is dummy away from the presidency? Now whatever the number is it's still a scary thought :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I think if it got to the point where Henry Paulson became President, Rummy would take him out himself.

[elbamba]

I'll tell you what Bush did compared to Obama, he was the governor of one of the most powerful/influential states in the USA.

Obama has done nothing but graduate from Harvard, Bush did that too. Obama is just a pretty boy.

[Dimm-O-Crap]

Impeach Bush!

[Ocotillo]

That column reminds me of this parody (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/29/snls-glimpse-into-the-final-week-of-rnc-ads/)

[101A]

I'll tell you what Bush did compared to Obama, he was the governor of one of the most powerful/influential states in the USA.

Obama has done nothing but graduate from Harvard, Bush did that too. Obama is just a pretty boy.



yale

[YoMamaIsCallin]

yale

well, he did Yale undergrad and Harvard B-school for his MBA, after his stint in the National Guard. So, you're both right.

First president ever to have an MBA.

[Yonivore]

yale
And Harvard.

[xrayzebra]

Impeach Bush!


The dimm-o-crap plan for the country. Now you know.

[Guru of Nothing]

How sad.

Thomas, you can represent any piece on the chess board. What do you want to be?

"I want to be the big pawn."

[spurster]

That Pelosi hussy is just too uppity. She needs to stay in her house and stick to cleaning and fussing around her man.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The thought of either Rumsfeld or Pelosi as prez. makes me want to puke.

[DarkReign]

President Pelosi (how does that sound?)

:vomit:

[Ocotillo]

As regards the war on terrorism and the terrorists' war against the west, Nancy Pelosi has opposed having international phone calls to and from terrorists monitored by American intelligence agencies.

The liberal spin is that this is "domestic spying" when someone on one end of the line is within the United States.

No that is your lie Sowell. There is no spin. Liberals have been crystal clear all along, get a warrant and spy all you want. Checks and balances Tommy, that is what liberals care about, the freedoms this country was founded upon but you are so quick to toss away because you are trembling in fear of the next terrorist attack.

[xrayzebra]

^^Nope it is the Liberal lie. It is not domestic spying or wire tapping. It is about
international calls.

[ChumpDumper]

^^Nope it is the Liberal lie. It is not domestic spying or wire tapping. It is about
international calls.You can get warrants for that too -- even after you tap the call.

[Yonivore]

You can get warrants for that too -- even after you tap the call.
But, warrants are unnecessary and a waste of time and resources for calls originating outside the United States.

If they call a number in the United States, you only need a warrant if you intend continue monitoring that domestic phone number.

Why would you require them to seek a warrant for continuing to monitor a suspected terrorist's phone overseas and why would you expect them to seek a warrant on a domestic phone if they had no intention of continuing to surveil it?

[ChumpDumper]

But, warrants are unnecessary and a waste of time and resources for calls originating outside the United States.Ah yes, the "lazy" excuse. Why are Republicans so lazy? Or maybe they're just afraid of a paper trail? Or maybe they just have outright contempt at the thought of someone having oversight over their actions?

All of the above.

[Yonivore]

Ah yes, the "lazy" excuse. Why are Republicans so lazy? Or maybe they're just afraid of a paper trail? Or maybe they just have outright contempt at the thought of someone having oversight over their actions?

All of the above.
Why are Democrats so inefficient? Seriously, why would you seek a warrant on a overseas telephone number just because it might call, or receive a call from, some unknown-to-you domestic number?

I understand seeking a warrant once you've decided to surveil the domestic number but, getting a warrant because Ahmed calls his baby sister at Yale, from Pakistan, to wish her a happy birthday seems a little excessive. You must think federal prosecutors and FISA just sit around all day.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are Democrats so inefficient? Seriously, why would you seek a warrant on a overseas telephone number just because it might call, or receive a call from, some unknown-to-you domestic number?Due process, the mere appearance of propriety and respect for the law -- you know, the little things.
I understand seeking a warrant once you've decided to surveil the domestic number but, getting a warrant because Ahmed calls his baby sister at Yale, from Pakistan, to wish her a happy birthday seems a little excessive.Days after the call is tapped? Lazy.
You must think federal prosecutors and FISA just sit around all day.A FISA judge IS sitting around all day available to give the warrants days after the calls are tapped. The laziness excuse will never fly as long as the warrant process is that easy to follow.

[Yonivore]

Due process, the mere appearance of propriety and respect for the law -- you know, the little things.
Since when are suspected terrorists, overseas, due any process? That's a new one.


Days after the call is tapped? Lazy.
If you're tapping an overseas number, what's the point in getting a warrant at all? You can't help if that phone is used to call a domestic number or receive a call from the U.S. -- it's just as likely to be used to call a Sudanese number or receive a call from Belgium.


A FISA judge IS sitting around all day available to give the warrants days after the calls are tapped. The laziness excuse will never fly as long as the warrant process is that easy to follow.
I'm sure the FISA judges are pretty busy as it is. You seem to believe this administration is taking nothing to FISA.

[ChumpDumper]

Just let the government be lazy and keep no records and work without oversight. I love big, unaccountable government that works in total secrecy.

[YoMamaIsCallin]

No that is your lie Sowell. There is no spin. Liberals have been crystal clear all along, get a warrant and spy all you want. Checks and balances Tommy, that is what liberals care about, the freedoms this country was founded upon but you are so quick to toss away because you are trembling in fear of the next terrorist attack.

During WW II every telegraph message was intercepted and read, without a warrant. This was well known in certain circles including the press, but they did not publish it, because we were at war.

So don't talk as if this is something new and different, and we're "tossing away our freedoms".

It has never been necessary to get a warrant for everything. There are subtle legal points involved. No one wants to hear the details, they just want to scream "Warrantless Wiretapping!" It's simply become a political spin-cycle headline-grabber.

The "liberals" (or at least some of them) are EXACTLY trying to stop the Bush administration from "spying". They want the process to be slowed down, they want the process to be stopped depending on which judge happens to review it. They fundamentally believe we are waging some kind of imperialist occupation and they want it stopped, by any means necessary. This is just one of the means. Or, they fundamentally believe that it's more important for them to be in power than to tell the complete truth, thus the cynical news spins.

[xrayzebra]

Ah yes, the "lazy" excuse. Why are Republicans so lazy? Or maybe they're just afraid of a paper trail? Or maybe they just have outright contempt at the thought of someone having oversight over their actions?

All of the above.


Why are you so dumb? You use such poor judgement. Do you hear the
black helicopters circling, like Nbadan. Put on your tinfoil hat. Bush is
coming for you.

[ChumpDumper]

they want the process to be stopped depending on which judge happens to review it.You should probably check the record for how many FISA warrant requests were turned down.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you so dumb? You use such poor judgement. Do you hear the
black helicopters circling, like Nbadan. Put on your tinfoil hat. Bush is
coming for you.I don't trust government enough to let it operate without oversight or records. I guess you do trust government.

[xrayzebra]

^^Yeah, in some cases, I do. I have no choice, they (which is actually me and you)
do a pretty good damn job when it comes to protecting us. It is politicians I don't
trust too much. But the people who do the nuts and bolts work, yeah I trust, why,
because they attempt to live by the many rules laid down in the methods and
procedures to insure your and others rights are protected. Why you think those
that oppose listening in on conversations outside the U.S. are right, I have no idea.
Because most of them are against anything this country does to begin with.

[Ocotillo]

Enough of the WWII analogies. Not even close to the same thing.

[ChumpDumper]

Why you think those
that oppose listening in on conversations outside the U.S. are right, I have no idea.
Because most of them are against anything this country does to begin with.You mean former FISA judges? And get it straight, they don't oppose the wiretaps, they oppose a complete absence of oversight.
I have no choiceSure you do.

[xrayzebra]

^^No just people like you. That don't want the country or it's
citizen to be protected. Former FISA judges can be wrong too.

[ChumpDumper]

No just people like you. That don't want the country or it's
citizen to be protected.Sure I want the citizens to be protected. That includes being protected FROM the government.
Former FISA judges can be wrong too.So can I. So can you. So can Bush.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, I hear the storm troopers in my hood every night crashing
down the doors and notice no one is using their cell phones anymore
for fear of being arrested. Get life Chump!

[ChumpDumper]

It's a slippery slope, x.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, but the slope can kill us both, if you have you way. I
trust our government enough to know they aren't out just randomly
listening to BS conversations. Or even criminal conversations. For
the latter, they would need a warrant and show proof in court. The
other terrorist conversations are to stop acts of terror. Big difference.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, but the slope can kill us both, if you have you way.My way is simply filling out some paperwork a day or two after a phone is tapped. If our government can't do that, we've already lost.

[PixelPusher]

My way is simply filling out some paperwork a day or two after a phone is tapped. If our government can't do that, we've already lost.
For shame, Chumper! Requiring the barest modicum of accountability and oversight plays right into the hands of the terrorists who hate our freedoms so bad! [/insert irony emoticon here]

[Yonivore]

It's a slippery slope, x.
Funny how we've made it through six years of this "slippery slope" presidency and not one American has fallen off the edge of the Constitution.

[ChumpDumper]

Funny how we've made it through six years of this "slippery slope" presidency and not one American has fallen off the edge of the Constitution.Yet. I'd prefer to stop the government before it gets any more bright ideas. I'm sure you'd love to give President Pelosi even more power without oversight if she says it's all to fight terra, right?

[Yonivore]

Yet. I'd prefer to stop the government before it gets any more bright ideas. I'm sure you'd love to give President Pelosi even more power without oversight if she says it's all to fight terra, right?
That'd be hard for her to explain since she would probably abandon the GWOT and start "negotiating" with Osama bin Laden.

Wake me when Bush's Jackboots start rounding up dissenters.

[ChumpDumper]

That'd be hard for her to explain since she would probably abandon the GWOT and start "negotiating" with Osama bin Laden.Nah, since she's a San Fran-cis-co liberal, she'll want as much power over your life as possible, so the war will go on, and you'll bend over for her or Hillary or any Democrat, as long as terra is mentioned.
Wake me when Bush's Jackboots start rounding up dissenters.Haven't you screamed for this on this very board?

[Ocotillo]

Wake me when Bush's Jackboots start rounding up dissenters.

Wake you? Heck you'll be wearing the jackboots.

[xrayzebra]

Nah, since she's a San Fran-cis-co liberal, she'll want as much power over your life as possible, so the war will go on, and you'll bend over for her or Hillary or any Democrat, as long as terra is mentioned.Haven't you screamed for this on this very board?

Naw, she will do like Clinton and just call the FBI and have about 900 FBI files sent over on
people she doesn't like.

I'll bet you were really upset over that little
deal, weren't you. But I don't recall you saying
anything about it on the board. But I'm sure
you were, because of civil rights violations. Or
perceived violations.

[xrayzebra]

Enough of the WWII analogies. Not even close to the same thing.


We aren't at war?

[ChumpDumper]

Naw, she will do like Clinton and just call the FBI and have about 900 FBI files sent over on
people she doesn't like.

I'll bet you were really upset over that little
deal, weren't you. But I don't recall you saying
anything about it on the board. But I'm sure
you were, because of civil rights violations. Or
perceived violations.FBI files are government records. I dont' know why they can't be looked at. Sure it's sleazy, but if you think someone's rights were violated, you'd probably have to take it up with the FBI first.

[ChumpDumper]

We aren't at war?Are we?

[RandomGuy]

well, he did Yale undergrad and Harvard B-school for his MBA, after his stint in the National Guard. So, you're both right.

First president ever to have an MBA.

Not that it means as much as one would think.

George Washington didn't have an MBA because such a thing didn't exist, but the guy was no slouch when it came to business. Besides, I think GW has firmly established that MBA does not equal business prowess.

Bush-bots like to hold this up as some kind of counter to the idiot/brain damage thing, but in the end, it doesn't mean as much as they would like it to.

[RandomGuy]

During WW II every telegraph message was intercepted and read, without a warrant. This was well known in certain circles including the press, but they did not publish it, because we were at war.

So don't talk as if this is something new and different, and we're "tossing away our freedoms".

It has never been necessary to get a warrant for everything. There are subtle legal points involved. No one wants to hear the details, they just want to scream "Warrantless Wiretapping!" It's simply become a political spin-cycle headline-grabber.

The "liberals" (or at least some of them) are EXACTLY trying to stop the Bush administration from "spying". They want the process to be slowed down, they want the process to be stopped depending on which judge happens to review it. They fundamentally believe we are waging some kind of imperialist occupation and they want it stopped, by any means necessary. This is just one of the means. Or, they fundamentally believe that it's more important for them to be in power than to tell the complete truth, thus the cynical news spins.

We aren't at war. Why should we have to give up liberty for temporary security?

[RandomGuy]

We aren't at war?

Name the country that we have declared war on.

[Yonivore]

Speaking of Pelosi, where the fuck has she been? No media appearances since October 22...isn't she the Speaker wannabe for the Democrats?

Probably afraid she'll speak the truth like John Kerry.

[boutons_]

John Kerry spoke the truth:

dubya is an uneducated, failed-at-real-life dumbfuck "stuck in Iraq" without a clue how win or how to get out and why his puppet-meisters wanted him to start war.