Ms. Pelosi's Excellent Adventure

Friend of the column TK sends us the transcript of Nancy Pelosi's flat-out-amazing press conference last week regarding the Supreme Court and the Kelo decision. The next time a Democrat mocks President Bush as less-than-intelligent, I plan to ask them why Nancy Pelosi is an elected leader in their party. The President's been elected twice by the American people. Pelosi's been elected by her district to represent them, but the Democratic House members somehow decided she should represent the entire party. I'm not sure that this is what they had in mind. There's so much goofy stuff here that I need to break down the excerpts I truly enjoyed by segment.

Ms. Pelosi. Good morning. Are you getting ready for the Fourth of July weekend?
Pretty exciting time. It is my favorite national holiday, with stiff competition
from all of the others as well.

This like saying, "I love turkey. It's my favorite kind of food, with stiff competition from everything else." Does anyone other than a hack politician speak like this?

I come before you to say that unfortunately, once again, this Congress of the United States has missed opportunities to create jobs for the American people.

Unemployment's at 5% and falling, Nancy, with 3 million-plus jobs created in the last two-plus years. If they didn't do anything about this, maybe Congress should stick to inactivity, because it's working.

The job situation is one where the President is still a net loser in terms of job creation in the private sector. He has the worst record of job creation of any President since the Great Depression. Republicans again have failed to enact this highway bill which would go a long way. But there is much more that needs to be done than just from the public policy side of it. And the President's economic policies have dug us so far into a hole that will take an enormous amount of job creation to dig us out.

Seriously, can someone update her materials so she's not using 2004 campaign literature? I mean, she does know that it's 2005, right? And I'm also missing something here. Apparently, public policy won't be enough to correct the problems caused by the President's economic policies -- only an enormous amount of job creation will save the Republic. If Pelosi is saying that Congress can't legislate the creation of new jobs... is she actually admitting that the private sector will need to do the work? Nah, she's a Democrat -- she's probably planning on convening a seance or something.

The deficits continue to grow. We have a budget deficit that will be over $400 billion this year, and that is with all of the good economic projections.

But let's be sure to pass an expensive highway bill, right?

As we go into the Fourth of July, we pay reverence to our veterans. We do every day, but especially on the Fourth of July. And here we are, the President is telling us to fly the flag, and we certainly do each day, and we certainly will on the Fourth of July. But as we fly the flag, we must also fund veterans' benefits. And the sad part of this is that the veterans have had such a tough fight in this Congress and with this Administration to get what is their just due.

If Bush said this about a Democrat, he'd be accused of questioning hteir patriotism. But on the core issue, we're complaining about the deficit and still upset about lack of funding for veteran's benefits. I'm glad to hear Pelosi supports the military... but I have a sneaking suspicion that she probably protested war appropriations for Iraq at some point. I guess she likes to support our retired and injured soldiers, but not the ones in the field.

Q Ms. Pelosi, do House Democrats or Senate Democrats plan to offer their own Social Security proposal, and if so, what might it say? And if not, why not?

Ms. Pelosi. Are we going to offer our own Social Security proposal? The big issue with Social Security is solvency. Nothing that the Republicans have done has addressed the issue of solvency. And solvency of course is affected by the budget deficits, as well as the Republicans continued raid on Social Security.

The only way to address solvency is to go to the table in a bipartisan way to do that. The model was Speaker Tip O'Neill in 1983, when he joined the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, in a bipartisan meeting to resolve the issue of solvency of Social Security. They did so in a very effective way. Social Security is solvent until the middle of this century. It will be solvent for 70 years from when they took their action. That's the way to do that.

We have been, I think, very effective in saying our plan is to save Social Security, to stop privatization, to stop the raid on Social Security, and to strengthen solvency. That is our plan.

We've been effective in saying our plan is to make sure it's solvent. Details... well, we don't have any of those. But if I wave my magic wand, all will be well.

Q Can we go back to Social Security? Are you asking your Members to do anything specific, or to step up any of their efforts in light of the fact that it seems much more definitive that there will be a bill on the floor, and there may be a vote by the end of September? Does that change your tactics at all?

Ms. Pelosi. It doesn't change our tactics because we have been on course. We have had over 900 either town meetings or press conferences across the country, and I think we have successfully inoculated the public against the perils of privatization.

Inoculated? What, is privitization a virus of some sort? I do appreciate the alliteration in the last sentence, though.

Q 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.

Um, rewind the question, Congresswoman. I know that I express a low opinion of the mainstream media, but it helps to listen to their questions. Apparently, Cornyn's bill would seek to prevent the use of federal funds for the seizure of private property in eminent domain cases where said property would be transferred to another private property, ala the Kelo decision.

Q 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.

The reporter actually is kind enough to act as if it's his (or her) mistake... and Pelosi still whiffs on the question (while effectively admitting that she dopesn't know anything about the case, as per her last sentence). This is worse than John Edwards trying to explain his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act by describing legislation he would have voted for... which was identical to the Defense of Marriage Act. Edwards was just trying to act slick. Pelosi doesn't even understand the basic nature of the Court's holding.

Kelo says that the government may seize private property for use by other private parties... it doesn't say that government has to do this. I think Pelosi may have spent too much time in the sun. What's funny is that she cites the concept of seperation of powers, yet she utterly contradicts it by effectively stating that Congress' decisions to undertake particular activities that are permitted by the Constitution may be required by the Court. Yeesh.

And I have absolutely no clue what the seperation of church and state has to do with this, but maybe Ralph Neas and Barry Lynn require Democratic leaders to say the phrase at least once at every press conference.

Q 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.

Q 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.

Hey! A Democrat who believes in God! Granted, God appears to be a revolving set of nine people wearing black robes, but it's a start. Although perhaps she needs to rethink her objections to breaching the wall between church and state -- if the Supreme Court is God, it probably needs to disassociate itself from the government right now. Seriously, even Pelosi's staff was probably gagging at this point.

Somehow, I'm guessing that if the Supreme Court ever overturned Roe v. Wade, Pelosi may not be quite so sanguine about supporting the Court's decision and prospects for changing it.

In the last year plus, the Democrats have selected John Kerry (Presidential candidate), Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader), Nancy Pelosi (House Minority Leader) and Howard Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman). Jeez, it's reallyhard to tell why this party has such trouble winning elections.