Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal)

I'm so disgusted with Nancy Pelosi that I can't tolerate seeing her face on the blog, so I'm posting a picture of one of my favorite animals, an Okapi...which would, by the way, be a likely improvement in over Pelosi.in Congress.

I’m so disgusted with Nancy Pelosi that I can’t tolerate seeing her face on the blog, so I’m posting a picture of one of my favorite animals, an Okapi…which would, by the way, be a likely improvement in over Pelosi in Congress.

Count the dishonest, idiotic, misleading, unethical statements in this jaw-dropping interview exchange. I count eight. I may have missed one or two, because I was vomiting by the end:

REPORTER: Since the IRS happened on President Obama’s watch, how much of a hit — or do you think at all Democrats will take a hit on the IRS in the 2014 midterms?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:  Well, you said it happened under his watch. (1) It happened under the appointment of the head of the IRS, who was appointed by President Bush. His length of stay extended into President Obama’s stay.  I think that points to the fact — (2) why is this a politicized issue?  We all are concerned about how the IRS does what it’s supposed to do but does not do it in a selective way. I said before what they did was wrong. The Inspector General has said over and over(3)  it is not illegal.  The committee wants to challenge the Inspector General on his findings, so that will unfold. But again (4) the IRS is an independent agency.  (????So the inference to be drawn happened on his watch is that it happened on his watch the way some other cabinet agency of government would. (5)  No, this is an independent agency is headed up by a Bush appointee. What they did was wrong. We have to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Selective review. We don’t like it on our side or their side. It has no place.

REPORTER: Doesn’t the buck stop with him? Should he have known about these things but he said he didn’t know about any of this?

PELOSI: (6)The president doesn’t know about everything that is going in every agency in government. (7.) Should Mr. Boehner have known because this is the neighborhood in Cincinnati where the IRS office is. I don’t think you can hold him accountable for what happened in that IRS office. (8.) I think that obviously the public will make its decision about it but that’s it. It’s a Bush appointee, under his leadership this happened. It was wrong. Let’s make sure it doesn’t happen again.

And may I say, with all due restraint, what an unethical woman, awful public servant, disgraceful American, pathetic Representative and despicable human being Nancy Pelosi is, as that outrageous sequence indicates.

1. Of course the I.R.S. scandal occurred on Obama’s watch. Who appointed Doug Shulman is irrelevant once a new Administration is in place and he reports to and is supervised by that leadership. Of course. If he is inadequate by the assessment of the current leadership, it is his duty to replace him. If he doesn’t, he—that is, the President— is 100%—100%!—responsible for his performance, and the previous administration shares none at all. Pelosi either knows this, and is lying, or doesn’t, and is too stupid to manage a lemonade stand. From years of observing her, I sincerely believe she is both.

2. Why is this a politicized issue? Could it be because the I.R.S. began specifically targeting conservative groups immediately after the 2010 election, blocking their ability to raise funds and participate meaningfully in opposing President Obama’s policies and re-election? Could it be that the activity was known about by high Obama officials and meticulously kept from Congress and the public in the months leading up to a closely contested election? The question is an insult to the public’s intelligence or, again, an indictment of this pathetic and virulently partisan public servant’s intellect and ability to perceive reality.

3. There is no question that confidential information was leaked by the I.R.S. to ProPublica, and that was probably illegal.

4. The I.R.S. is NOT, repeat NOT, an “independent agency.” The President cannot remove the head of independent agencies. The I.R.S. is an agency under the Treasury Department, and the head of it serves at the President’s pleasure. This ridiculous excuse for a Congresswoman was Speaker of the House, and she doesn’t know that?

????? “So the inference to be drawn happened on his watch is that it happened on his watch the way some other cabinet agency of government would.” Keep babbling, Nancy, maybe they’ll forget what the question was.

5. Stop saying that the I.R.S. is an independent agency, because it is not, and you are making the American public ignorant and stupid! And stop saying it was headed by a Bush appointee as if a) that relieves the President of his obligation to make sure the person in such an important position within his Administration is trustworthy  b) his hands are tied if the person is not doing an acceptable job and 3) there is any organization anywhere on earth in which a employee who is retained by a successor supervisor continues to be deemed the responsibility of the departed supervisor.

6. The President should damn well know when his tax collecting agency is engaged in blatantly political and unconstitutional activity, especially prior to an election, when his Chief of Staff and lawyer knows. Everything, no. Important things, absolutely yes.

7. Nancy Pelosi, you are an idiot. Speaker Boehner does not supervise the I.R.S. He is, like you, in the Legislative Branch of the government, and the I.R.S. is part of the Executive Branch, which the President of the United States is responsible for overseeing. And any Californian who votes for a lying, ignorant villain like you ought to be spat upon in the public square.

8.  “It’s a Bush appointee, under his leadership this happened.” Yes, this miserable excuse for a national leader now is saying that President Bush is still responsible for overseeing employees of the Federal Government even when he is out of office.

I’m sorry. I really try to maintain composure, moderation and reserve, even when conduct is so revolting that it makes my colon twist in shapes a pretzel would fear. But this is too much to bear. Pelosi is a one-woman walking indictment of everything that is wrong with our government and our politics. She is shameless and without ethics. She is willing to say anything, no matter how untrue or absurd, to further what she sees as her agenda. She is a dimwit, yet she holds and wields considerable influence and power. She does not understand management, basic organizational principles, or the government she has worked in for years, and has not bothered to educate herself in all that time. She was once third in line for the Presidency, yet she has nothing to offer but gibberish and lies. And her knee-jerk liberal district would continue to vote for her even if she was proven to be a cannibal or an emissary from Hell.

Go ahead. Anyone. Defend this.

Tell me it’s not really so bad.

I dare you.

____________________________________

Sources: RealClearPolitics, National Review, NewYork Times

46 thoughts on “Incompetent Elected Official Of The Month: Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal)

  1. It really isn’t……nope, it really is that bad. What is worst is no matter how bad she gets she will still be reelected.

  2. That’s all you’ll hear shortly from the media in regards to this iRS scandal know they go back into full ideological protection mode.

    “George bush appointed this person”

    • No, they just can’t. It’s too stupid. Even the media can’t have that many stupid people. That ridiculous excuse is a direct effort to appeal to the dumbest Americans (“Duuh, yeah! Hey, that’s right! It’s not the, duhhh, the President’s fault if he’s stuck with bad holdovers! I mean, what can he DO? And, like, everybody tries to please their previous boss, not their current one!”) or it comes from people who are miracles of nature, breathing and talking without a brain, like Nancy Pelosi.

      • I understand that it is dumb. I don’t mean to sound like the media will directly blame Bush.

        But I guarantee when they finally come out of the shock of the invasion of privacy scandal directly involving them and they get back on board the defend the democrats train, any time they discuss the head of the IRS we will be reminded that it was a Bush appointee.

        They don’t need to directly blame Bush, because as you said it is just plain dumb to do so. All they need to do is add just enough confusion and obfuscation to plant a small seed of doubt in just enough people’s minds so people stop caring.

        I’m a but cynical at this point regarding the media’s ability to handle anything without somehow trying to slant things in the democracy’s favor.

    • I don’t really understand it. Could it be that they are implying that ‘George Bush appointed a person to stay in office as a secret agent, biding his time to attack the Following administration?” “George Bush hired people to attack the Republicans, just not at a time when GB would get in trouble for it?” The truly scary thing is that I believe there are those that would accept either explanation.

      • I don’t either. Either the individual making this fatuous, obviously absurd argument is brain-damaged, or really thinks that the bulk of the public is too stupid to live. Yet I have heard it from members of Congress, Jay Carney, White House advisors, Ed Rendell, left bloggers and columnists. Some are stupid, and some are shameless, and it’s hard to tell which. But when those words exit someone’s mouth. I will never have any respect for them again.

        • I think this all can be summed up as arrogance, they feel so morally superior, that the ends justify the means and count on their narrative will be the one that the media picks up and drowns out all dissenting views.

  3. If you want a defense of Pelosi, I’ll give you one, and it can be summed up in this truism (which may have been a quote or paraphrase by somebody, but I can’t confirm it):

    “We get the government we deserve.”

    Nancy Pelosi has been spouting this drivel for years, but as far as I can tell, she is in no danger of losing her district. Therefore, she can say anything she wants, as long as it doesn’t violate the tenets of political correctness; so she does. She isn’t stupid, she’s simply confident that behaving in a totally unethical way has no consequences for her at all as long as she stays within the manufactured lines of “political discourse.”

    Mark Sanford is the government we deserve, and so is Charles Rangel, Michael (Who’s your nanny?) Bloomberg, and Bill Clinton. We elect them, and when we keep re-electing them after they have demonstrated complete unfamiliarity with the concepts of ethics and good behavior. We are telling them, with our votes, that what they say and do doesn’t matter to their job as long as they don’t break the law, and sometimes even if they do.

    Any employee who has no fear of losing his job has a powerful motivation to do what he or she wants (or rather, a lack of motivation to do what his or her employer wants), and that’s what we have here with Pelosi. Mark Sanford amply demonstrated that ideology trumps ethics any day of the week. Assuming that, are you really surprised that Pelosi et. al. are coming to the apparent conclusion that ethics are more of a liability than an asset?

    Pelosi is a symptom, not a disease. Her constituents have proven time after time that this is the kind of representation they desire in Congress. They don’t care what she says or what she does within the narrow realm of politics as long as she votes the right way. This is a representative republic, and they are getting exactly what they elected. Can we really blame her for delivering what they ask? Of course we can, in the context of broader government, but as a representative, she is doing what here district asks, or at least what they will tolerate.

    In other words, her immediate bosses are happy with her. Can we fire the 12th district of California?

    • Glenn, you raise some fair points here. But you’re overlooking something very important.

      It is certainly the wont of given congressional district to elect (and re-elect) the incompetent, the corrupt, the crazy. We see it again and again, and frankly, we see it on both sides of the aisle.

      Pelosi is an especially disturbing case. I’m not troubled by the fact that she gets re-elected by her district; the problem is that she gets re-elected by her CAUCUS. She is not relegated to the back bench; she’s the Democratic party leader in the House, and prior to 2010 she was the most powerful person in that body.

      It’s one thing for a district to elect someone like her. It’s a much more serious matter when the party puts its full weight behind her.

      • Excellent point. The same could be said for Anthony Wiener, Alan Greyson and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. These people are terrifying and they’re made the face of the Democratic party and allowed to ramble on in in front of the adoring television cameras.

    • But the offensive part of the IRS targeting is that it silenced conservative voices. This raises the question of whether the voters of the CA12 absolved of responsibility for Pelosi because the IRS actions prevented them from getting the information needed to make an informed decision to re-elect her.

  4. I suppose a philosophical “you get what you ask for” approach might lead to one living a longer life. But I’m so damned mad at elected officials who get elected by decieving the electorate into believing that they going to do the right thing, and once elected show beyond any doubt that they don’t have an adult relationship with the truth! What bothers me the most is that our esteemed president thinks that the American people are just plain stupid!

  5. I won’t defend what she said, I just have an observation. The IRS apparently employs morons. If I were at the IRS and (unethically and arguably illegally) wanted to weaken the GOP, I would want to APPROVE every Tea Party group asking for this status. The Tea Party primarily is made up of disgruntled Republicans, with lesser numbers of Independents, and even fewer disgruntled Democrats. A strong Tea Party would splinter the Republican base and, at least in the short term, help Democrats get elected.

    • The Tea Party aren’t a competing political party like Ross Perot’s UWSA party or the Constitution Party. If the Tea Party grows, that’s generally good for Republicans, conservative ones in particular.

        • And Ron Paul, like other Tea Party-associated candidates, was a Republican. Lots of people write in the candidate they liked who lost the primary. Doesn’t change the fact that the Tea Party isn’t a political party just because it has “party” in the name.

  6. It’s a Bush appointee, under his leadership this happened.

    Bush was so stupid, so incompetent, he somehow managed to still be in control of huge swathes of both the economy and the government itself years after his stay in office ended.

    Just like he was so stupid and incompetent he managed to get people on the Supreme Court who would later STEAL THE ELECTION FOR HIM.

    He is the most bumbling of evil geniuses to ever have lived…

  7. So where are all those commenters arguing last week that voting for lying fools like Pelosi is justified as long as they vote the “right” way more often than not? Because lying fools can do an awful lot of damage when they have power, even if they throw their supporters bones now and then…

    • Speaking only for myself, I said that it is justified when voters are presented only with bad choices. I think that’s what every reasonable person would do. But I will say something here that will get outrage — this is politics as usual. I don’t condone it and I don’t like it — but this story (including the spin) would be playing out the same way if you changed the political allegiance of each of the actors involved. And, even taking into account the million posts re media bias, what really matters is what people think. I only can name one liberal friend who isn’t outraged over the events that have unfolded over the last few weeks. (Also, for the record, I’ve never been a supporter of Pelosi, and if I were in CA I’d most certainly vote against her in a primary and possibly the state election depending on the opponent.)

      • Yup, that’s outrageous all right. Accepting standards that abysmally low perpetuates them. And Pelosi is NOT the norm, absolutely not. Anyone who tolerates that level of stupidity and dishonesty is betraying their duty as citizens.

        Yes, if Pelosi is running against Michele Bachmann, I just shoot myself or move. But I won’t vote for either. As a friend likes to say, “There is some shit I will not eat.”

        • Identifying a problem does not perpetuate it Jack — see above, I did not say that I “accepted” it. Maybe if everybody understands the “problem” then we can work on solving issues that really do perpetuate it: like campaign finance, lobbying, gerrymandering, etc.

        • Yes. Politicians lie all the time. They figure out their talking points and then repeat them over and over again. This is what I mean by politics as usual.

          • Well, all of them do not lie “all the time,” and not about abuse of citizens. And this is not “politics as usual.” There is nothing about ploitics that requires Pelosi’s vile conduct—it isn’t even smart or effective politics. Your attitude is based on a lack of appreciation of what politics entails, and saying this is politics as usual is exactly like saying…

            ..rape is prison as usual
            ..cheating is education as usual
            ..incest is parenting as usual
            ..sexual harassment is work as usual
            ..child labor is manufacturing as usual
            ..torture is interrogation as usual
            ..incompetence is government as usual

            …and that just gives it all a pass.

            • I’m starting to wonder if people can read on this site. My initial comment stated: “But I will say something here that will get outrage — this is politics as usual. I don’t condone it and I don’t like it.” You are treating my statment exactly like a biased reporter or politician — using only the part you want to prove your point while ignoring the very next statement that gives it context.

              Jack, you are examining the end result of a corrupt, money-hungry, and personal/group power-protecting system and saying, “look at all this unethical conduct.” Duh. I agree with you — EVERYONE agrees with you. But, in addition to condemning present behavior, doesn’t it make sense to also look at the root causes of why we keep seeing our politicians behave this way again and again and again? I say let’s work this problem from both ends.

              Anyone who doesn’t get on board with that sentiment is part of the problem.

  8. Jack, I seem to recall that you recently took to task the voters of a district for electing…Mark Sanford? Are you ever going to similarly rail at the ethics dunce-hood of the voters who keep re-electing Pelosi, plus voters of at least a few other districts, for the poor quality of people whose power in office those voters are inexcusably perpetuating to the injury of the whole country?

      • I will re-check your posts by way of tags. I apologize for accusing you of not having “done that many times, and in many ways.” I do not recall having read more than one of your posts that were specifically titled, and that called out as a group as dunces, the voters of a specific jurisdiction. I believe I would have recalled if you had done that. I do recall many laments about the general poverty of ethics among voting populations, in the midst of other posts.

        • I’ll vouch for Jack on this one, Eeyoure. Can’t remember specifics but do recall numerous posts castigating districts for re-electing… ahem… “public servants” who’ve been caught red handed.

          • Okay, I apologize to Jack and to all blog followers for failing to remember. I searched “Ethics Dunces” back to early November of 2011, when I started following the blog:

            I found April 4, 2012 – residents of Ward 8 in the District of Columbia. (I will give Jack the benefit of doubt that that was not the first time he had called “dunces” there since the 1970s.)

            And, I found November 7, 2011 – 53% of the American public. (Obama was re-elected by about 51.43 percent of the popular vote. Maybe Jack and that guy Silver could address correlation.)

  9. “Accepting standards that abysmally low perpetuates them.”
    ************
    Stupid people elect stupid leaders.
    Obama is the favorite of low or no information voters.

  10. I can already hear the excuses when Dear Leader goes down.
    “I only voted for him because Romney was so horrible.”
    @@
    In other words, “I take no responsibility for my stupidity, ignorance, bias and need to follow the herd, I did it because the other guy was even worse!”

    It’s coming, I’m telling you.

    • FinlayO you are an optimist! Barack Obama is FOREVER. I would not be surprised if 45th POTUS Hillary appointed him to the UN, or Attorney General, or as some newly defined czar, like for “anti-violence” or “tolerance” or “balanced media” or some other. When the financial mirages dissolve, the economy collapses, and widespread anarchy fills the big cities (all of which I am expecting within 10 years), Obama and his beloved will be on one of the first, fastest and fanciest planes out of the country to some Muslim’s opulent safe house – with plenty of guns.

  11. If “Bush appointed him” is really going to be a talking point for these people, then it’s to Bush’s credit. He comes off looking like a great leader. Apparently Bush can appoint people who oppose him politically, and keep those people in line. But the same appointees act unaccountable and create scandals once Obama’s in charge.

    Not the smartest defense, Nancy. But you use what you can I guess.

  12. It should be noted that Bush appointed Shulman because congressional Democrats made it plain that they would block his preferred appointments. They wanted a corruptible man in the IRS for their future use in political forays… and they got him. It worked to their benefit in 2012.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.