Dull Dems Outfoxed Again In House

Out of the obscurity that is the House of Representatives rises this morning Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), a hero who may not have been known outside his district yesterday, but deserves a glow of national recognition today.

For it was Shadegg who yesterday gave the Dem leadership their most embarrassing moment since NanPo's screechy rise to Speaker, in a story well told by The Hill:

House Republicans on Tuesday nearly forced Democratic leaders to vote on a resolution to impeach Vice President Cheney.

Anti-war presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced a privileged resolution, used to circumvent the committee process, to get his impeachment measure to the House floor.

The vote to kill Kucinch’s privileged resolution began as a largely party-line affair, but halfway through the vote, Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) persuaded Republican leaders to get rank-and-file GOP lawmakers to change their votes to force the debate.

At one point, the vote to table the motion stood at 246-165. Once Republicans began switching their votes, momentum swung the other way. When the vote stood at 205-206, some Democrats began switching their votes.

The vote to kill Kucinich’s resolution finally failed 162-251, giving Republicans the opportunity to watch Democrats debate whether to impeach Cheney — a debate in which many liberal Democrats were more than willing to engage.

House Republicans clearly enjoyed watching Democratic leaders squirm during the series of votes, which lasted more than one hour.

“The determination was made that if Democrats are going to waste time and resources with a resolution like this, then it should be thoroughly debated,” said Brian Kennedy, the spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), adding that the charges against Cheney were “ludicrous.”

NanPo, for her part, accused the GOP of "wasting time," and Steny Hoyer took the same tack, saying the little trick was “a continuation of Republicans’ gotcha games that achieve nothing more than short-term entertainment for themselves, while showing their disdain for the importance of the people’s business.”

If they were talking about the Dem's multiple failed efforts to pass various war-stopping resolutions and bills, their words could not be more spot-on.

hat-tip: memeorandum

DC Coughs Up A War On Terror Win

It's difficult to say whether passage of a good, tough framework for the terror surveillance bill was:

• Yet another sign of Nancy Pelosi's utter failure as Leader -- a disastrous role model for women who wish to pursue political careers
  
  
• Yet another sign that the GOP leadership has become stronger since becoming the minority party -- something they might well have tried to do before they became a minority
  
  
• Or -- and I'm reaching here -- evidence that Congress is actually, finally putting petty bickering aside in favor of actually fighting the war on terror.

Whichever is the case (and it's really all three), the Senate agreement on the terms for new legislation on domestic surveillance incorporate most of what Bush wanted, particularly protections for telecoms that participate in the programs, and none of the dangerous restrictions earlier demanded by the Dems.

Pelosi's failure came earlier in the day, when House Dem leadership realized that they had to pull a competing version of the measure that included stupid restrictions on terrorist surveilance. Why pull it? Because, yet again, they didn't have the votes needed to squelch GOP opposition, and yet again, they were out-maneuvered by the GOP leadership. It is the first time NanPo has actually had to pull a bill in the face of GOP opposition. And hopefully, not the last.

As good as it is to see the beginnings of an effective front against those who would like to see terrorist combatants and their supporters be coddled by the government, I have to admit that my pleasure in seeing the progress has taken a momentary back seat to the joy that comes from reading this in WaPo:

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, called it a "perfect storm" of progressive Democrats who did not think the bill protected basic constitutional rights and of Republicans who took advantage of the lack of unity. "It was too precipitous a process, and it ended up in a train wreck," she said. "It was total meltdown."

Why is the ACLU, which feeds itself in large part off attorney's fee rulings when it wins lawsuits, so upset? Let the Captain (hat-tip: memeorandum) explain:

The collapse of the Democrats on FISA mirrors that of two months ago, when they wound up endorsing the terrorist-surveillance program which they had previously claimed was illegal. The collapse this time comes with the telecom immunity provisions the Democrats had promised to fight. They didn't even protect the trial lawyers by indemnification, which would have forced the government to pay any judgments won by plaintiffs against the phone companies for their cooperation in the war on terror. This provision, which allows the government to show in secret that they ordered the telecoms to cooperate, eliminates all of the lawsuits before they even come to court. (emphasis added)

No lawsuits, no judgments for fees, no judgment for fees, no bucks for the ACLU. And they're good, rich, yummy bucks, because federal court atty fees are pegged at Big DC Attorney billing levels, but the ACLU pays a serf's pittance to the naive, idealistic legal grunts that do their heavy lifting. A nice spread, a tidy profit ... all kaput due to the three bullets above.

Of course, this was a procedural victory and there's a few more rows to hoe before victory is in hand.

If the Senate agreement becomes the new law, the FISA court will be directed to review the government's procedures for deciding who is to be the subject of warrantless surveillance, about the only Dem victory in the matter. As they research the matter, the FISA judges would do well to read Atlas Blogged's brilliant post, A Thought Experiment for Civil Libertarians.

In the piece, Wulf makes the point that when police get a wiretap warrant on Joe in Toledo, they get to listen to Bob in Tampa when Joe and Bob are on the phone. And if Bob lets loose that he's smuggling Marlboros into New York, they can bust him. But if it's the CIA or NSA legally listening to Osama in Kandahar talking to Bob in Tampa, suddenly listening in on Bob is illegal. That's the gist of the Dem battle against Bush's position on FISA, and it makes no sense.

There's reason, and there's Dem rhetoric. There's commitment to victory and there's commitment to campaign contributors. All and all, America is sliding down the slippery slope away from its ideals, but yesterday, the National Heel caught for a moment and our downward trajectory towards the foul Lib swamp was briefly halted.

Yawn! GAO Report Slams Iraq Progress. Yawn!

About 10 years ago, we thought we'd won a big victory when we forced a Government Accountability Office audit of the Carlsbad office of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. There was a lot wrong with that office, and we thought a GAO audit would make it obvious.

It didn't. GAO audits, we found out, often are set up to get the results that are desired; in this case, that an overworked staff was doing its best, despite some small mistakes that were primarily due to bad paperwork processing. Not a word about renegade field officers and unsupportable decisions.

So, it is with a yawn and a trite ol' "been there, done that" that I review news that a GAO report is going to say the war in Iraq is going badly. Even before I got beyond the headlines, I knew what I would read, because I knew that the Dem controlled Congress would set parameters that would have to yield a bad headline.

And it's true.

In paragraph 10 of the WaPo story, well below the paragraph that says the government scum official who leaked the report did so because he was afraid it would be "watered down in the final version," we find:

The May legislation imposed a stricter standard on the GAO, requiring an up-or-down judgment on whether each benchmark has been met. On that basis, the GAO draft says that three of the benchmarks have been met while 13 have not. Despite its strict mandate, the GAO draft concludes that two benchmarks -- the formation of governmental regions and the allocation and expenditure of $10 billion for reconstruction -- have been "partially met." Little of the allocated money, it says, has been spent.

AP did much better, mentioning the criteria in paragraph three, basically part of the extended lead to the story.

I wonder if Congress would be happy with a GAO report that measured its performance on the same scale. Since Nancy Pelosi is the speaker, let's apply a little GAO-think to the platform NanPo laid out for her first 100 hours. Our criteria is simple enough: Did what she promised become law?

If you honor Democratic candidates with your vote today, in the first hundred hours of a Democratic Congress: We will restore civility, integrity, and fiscal responsibility to the House of Representatives. NO

We will start by cleaning up Congress, breaking the link between lobbyists and legislation and commit to pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. NO

We will make our nation safer and we will begin by implementing the recommendations of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission. NO (Remember, partial success is no success under the rules.)

We will make our economy fairer, and we will begin by raising the minimum wage. We will not pass a pay raise for Congress until there is an increase in the minimum wage. YES

We will make health care more affordable for all Americans, and we will begin by fixing the Medicare prescription drug program, putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices. NO We will also promote stem cell research to offer real hope to the millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases. NO

We will broaden college opportunity, and we will begin by cutting interest rates for student loans in half. NO

We will energize America by achieving energy independence, and we will begin by rolling back the multi-billion dollar subsidies for Big Oil. NO

We will guarantee a dignified retirement, and we will begin by fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security. NO

So NanPo, who supposedly has full control of the situation and certainly has no GOP militia blowing up cars in her neighborhood or beheading her allies, was able to succeed on one measure. If you're thinking I'm too tough and the criteria should be passing legislation through the house, she'll go three for ten.

Of course, you hear a lot less about that than you'll hear about the GAO report.

NanPo, Warrior Princess Of Prolificness

I was poking around NanPo's site today looking for any evidence that she's about to try to impose price limits on gasoline (none found, but don't sleep easy) and was quite impressed at the efforts Madam Speaker has been up too, legislatively speaking.

As a public service, here are the bills NanPo has authored this year.

• None. Four are being held for future use.

And here are all the bills she says she's supported. All of them.

1. H.RES.15 : Mourning the passing of President Gerald Rudolph Ford and celebrating his leadership and service to the people of the United States.

2. H.RES.61 : Observing the Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and encouraging the people of the United States to observe the Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for other purposes.

3. H.RES.180 : Honoring the life and achievements of Leo T. McCarthy and expressing profound sorrow on his death.

4. H.RES.361 : Recognizing and honoring Jack Valenti and expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives to his family on his death.

5. H.RES.406 : Celebrating the accomplishments of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, also known as the Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, and recognizing the need to continue pursuing the goal of educational opportunities for women and girls.

6. H.R.406 : To posthumously award a Congressional Gold Medal to Alice Paul in recognition of her role in the women's suffrage movement and in advancing equal rights for women.

7. H.R.625 : To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4230 Maine Avenue in Baldwin Park, California, as the "Atanacio Haro-Marin Post Office".

Gee. The Bay Area must be so proud of their foremost citizen.

Meanwhile, inquisitive constituents will be thrilled to find this:

Economy
Education
Environment
Health Care
Homeland Security

Yes, the links to all her issues pages are broken. Issues? Schmissues! It's all about power, baby!

P.S. The accompanying art is from a blog by the fellow on the right that is a temple to NanPo. Every post is about her and its lushly illustrated with fantastic images like the one I borrowed above. Enjoy your trip to Zaius Nation, whose author describes himself in a way that can only come from the Bay Area:

Dr. Zira, I must caution you. Experimental brain surgery on these creatures is one thing, and I'm all in favor of it. But to suggest that we can learn anything about the simian nature from a study of man is sheer nonsense. Man is a menace, a walking pestilence. He eats up his food supply in the forest, then migrates to our green belts and ravages our crops. The sooner he is exterminated, the better. It's a question of simian survival.

The Pelosi Doctrine?!

You probably didn't know there is a Pelosi Doctrine that is a counterpoint to the Bush Doctrine. I didn't. And I'm not sure Nancy Pelosi did either.

But since she played diplomat on her recent "fact finding" tour of the Middle East, there certainly is within the players there a perception of a second U.S. foreign policy, one that will come to pass if only the Dems seize the White House in 2008. And for the most radical forces in the region, it will be worth the wait.

"Hold on, just hold on for a couple more years," they must be telling themselves in the pant-suited wake of NanFran's visit. "If we can stick it out until January '09, we will win."

I read about the Pelosi Doctrine late last night in an article, What Pelosi Stands For, by Amir Taheri in the Arab News. It is such a significant column I am repeating it here in its entirety and urge you to read the entire thing, link to it, and send it to your friends.

The other face of America! This is how Arab media and political circles describe Nancy Pelosi as she winds up her tour of the Middle East amid criticism from the Bush administration. And, there is little doubt that much of the Arab elite likes that face better than the one presented by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in her trips to the region.

Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, describes her tour as a fact-finding exercise. But, judging by the substantial negotiations she engaged in, hers was a full-fledged diplomatic mission. At least, this is how most Arabs see it.

“She is the friendly face of America,” says a senior Syrian official. “Where Condi frowns, Nancy smiles.”

Dealing with Syria, do we really want smiles?

Taheri must have been smirking as he wrote the words "full-fledged diplomatic mission." NanFran carried nothing new of a diplomatic nature, just the stated positions of Israel and Syria, which she neither recognized as previously stated, or restated correctly. Even WaPo was bitter and angry in its denouncement of her efforts:

As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

How foolish was NanFran's scarf-adorned mission? We pick up Taheri's column:

Ms. Pelosi was specially feted in Damascus, capital of Syria, the oldest member of the club of “nations sponsoring international terrorism”, according to Washington.

“Her visit was a godsend to an isolated and beleaguered regime,” says a Lebanese minister. “The Syrian regime, which had been thinking of bowing to international pressure, is now reassured. All it has to do is to wait until Pelosi’s party takes over the White House in 2009.”

What the Baker study group didn't realize is how desperate the future of an isolated Syria is. They fully understood, though, what a nightmare the current U.S. policy is for functionaries at State who relish unproductive talks with repulsive regimes. Pelosi sided with them, and today Assad must have new vigor in his step.

The Pelosi mission confirms the analysis made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic that the United States is incapable of developing and implementing a long-term strategy. According to this analysis, the US is like a fickle monarch who might wake up one morning and decide to do the exact opposite of what he had been doing for years.

The most radical elements in the region liked Pelosi best if only because she endorsed their campaign of vilification against the Bush administration. Her motto was: Surrender before you have too, and claim credit for it! She represented a superpower that, because no one can take away anything from it, is prepared to give away everything.

Play that last sentence by again. "... because no one can take away anything from it, is prepared to give away everything." That is a fine introduction to the Pelosi Doctrine because it stands in such start contrast to the Bush Doctrine.

The Pelosi Doctrine, as demonstrated during the tour, is the opposite of the Bush Doctrine spelled out in 2002.

The Bush Doctrine links the United States’ national security to democratization in the Middle East. It asserts that undemocratic states serve as breeding grounds for terrorism the way that marshes breed mosquitoes. The US should therefore, throw its weight behind those forces and governments that promote reform in the region.

In practical terms, the Bush Doctrine means a number of things.

It means using force to remove regimes that lack internal mechanisms for change, as was the case with the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Saddamites in Iraq. It also means persuading friendly regimes to broaden their popular base, liberalize their economies, and open up the social and political space, as is the case in Egypt and Jordan among others. Elsewhere, the Bush Doctrine envisages robust opposition to the ambitions of such opportunist powers as Syria, in its quest to dominate Lebanon, and the Islamic Republic of Iran in its pursuit of regional hegemony.

In the Bush Doctrine the Israel-Palestine conflict is regarded as an almost peripheral problem that could be tackled best when the region is democratized, liberalized, and woven into the global system.

The Bush Doctrine is based on the implicit assumptions that the US represents a political system that is morally superior to that of its adversaries in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The Bush Doctrine is idea-driven, not to say idealistic.

A couple notes on this accurate representation of the doctrine: Taheri does not get into the parallel doctrine of a pre-emptive defense, without which the Bush Doctrine is a bit of a paper tiger. But he does get one thing right: That America sees its political systems as superior to those in the Middle East. He did not say America sees itself superior to the people of the Middle East.

Taheri gets it: It's about freedom and democracy, not Christianity and Islam.

Contrasting against this is the doctrine NanFran represented to the nations of the Middle East:

The Pelosi Doctrine, however, is based on realpolitik of the kind that Henry Kissinger or James Baker III, among countless other cynics, would approve.

It rejects the idea that the US political system, or the culture in which it is rooted, is in any way better, let alone superior, to systems developed by other peoples across the globe, including the Middle East. Pelosi applies the tenets of multiculturalism to international affairs: All systems are comparable; all systems are of equal value. She believes that other cultures might not be as good as hers, but hers sure can be as bad as theirs.

Politically correct multiculturalism has no place in world affairs. The defense of America must be done with eyes wide open, but under the Pelosi Doctrine, our government must wear blinders on the eyes and clothespins on the nose and sit down "as equals" with the likes of Assad.

The Pelosi Doctrine opposes the use of force, even against obnoxious anti-American regimes. Throughout her tour, Madame Speaker made it clear that she was determined to hasten the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, with hints that the US military presence in Afghanistan would also be wound down. Pelosi’s America would fight back only in self-defense, and rejects pre-emptive war based on perceived threats.

According to the Pelosi Doctrine, the US must work with the regimes in place, including those perceived as enemies. A great power, Pelosi believes, cannot afford to be judgmental. It must work with the realities on the ground rather than seek to change them in accordance with its vision of the world.

Who cares if that means continuing misery for those living under the "realities on the ground?" Liberals, as the mountains of dead in post-Vietnam war Cambodia and Vietnam bear witness to, care more about unachievable ideals like pacifism than they care for real people.

Pelosi also restores the status of the Israel-Palestine conflict as the most important issue of the region, if not of international life as a whole, and seeks to resume Washington’s role as mediator in a revived peace process. She rejects what some Arabs see as President George W. Bush’s partiality toward Israel, and urges a return to the even-handedness that the US demonstrated in the last years of the Clinton presidency.

It serves radical Islam well to keep the world's focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict because it succors those who want to keep Jew hatred alive and well, and it turns the world's attention away from what radical Islamists are doing in other places -- in fact, it provides an excuse for Islamism that plays well on the Arab street: We must do this because of the Jews and their American supporters.

Throughout her visit, Pelosi sought to project a modest image of the United States as opposed to the “arrogant” one presented by Bush.

What would the Middle East look like if the Pelosi Doctrine replaces the Bush Doctrine as the matrix of US foreign policy?

The US will withdraw from Iraq before the new Iraqi regime is capable of defending itself against its internal and external foes. It will then be up to rival regional powers, notably the Islamic republic [Iran], to determine the fate of Iraq, together with their local clients.

The new democratic regime in Afghanistan would also come under possibly fatal pressure. The country’s fate would then be in the hands of rival powers, notably Iran, Pakistan and Russia in conjunction with their respective clients within the country.

In the absence of political and diplomatic pressure from Washington, the current trend toward reform and liberalization would come to a halt in most parts of the region. Concerned about the rise of radical forces and greater hostility from revolutionary actors, such as the Islamic republic and the revived Al Qaeda, Arab regimes would postpone democratization and revert to repressive methods.

Lebanon’s “Cedar Revolution” would fade into memory, as Syrian troops return to Beirut to resume occupation.

The Pelosization of US foreign policy would also encourage the “one-state” camp with regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict. At present, a majority of regional powers support a two-state solution in the context of the Saudi peace proposals. But the two-state option is based on the assumption that the US remains an active element in its support, rather than a mediator hedging its bets.

The Pelosization of US foreign policy could plunge the Middle East into endless civil and regional wars, facilitate the return of terrorist organizations now facing defeat and ultimate destruction, and, in time, threaten US national security on a grander scale. And that, in turn, could force the US into wars bigger and costlier than the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq that Pelosi regards as mistakes.

Such is the message relayed -- and the vision held -- by the woman who stands next in line for the presidency behind a man with a notoriously bad heart . What a marvelous beacon of hope she must have been to those who are are using terrorism and cruelty to bring about our failure in the Middle East so their vision of jihad and repression can prevail.

Amir Taheri has done a fine service for the Islamic world in writing this piece, and I hope it gets broad play there. But he has also performed an outstanding service for we Americans. It is reassuring to see that in the Middle East there are intelligent people with powerful voices who fully endorse the power of positive change and do not want to see us fail because of Nancy Pelosi and her party.

Don't Know Your Enemy

She's daft, folks.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she raised the issue of Saudi Arabia's lack of female politicians with Saudi government officials on the last stop of her Mideast tour. ...

She met with the king Wednesday and with several members of the Shura Council, an unelected advisory assembly named by the king, on Thursday.

Asked if she had discussed the lack of women on the council, she told reporters, "The issue has been brought up in our discussions with the Saudis on this trip."

Simplistic little feminist. Questioning Saudi Arabia about mere equal representation for women is like an oncologist treating a pimple instead of what lies beneath. What point is it to have women in high office if you also have women in pits, being stoned for adultry? Instead of pushing for women in government, why not push for women in driver's seats, or in marriages of choice, or in professional studies programs at universities? Why not ask the king and Shura Council what they think of honor killings?

And with all due respect to women, why not discuss Saudi funding of Wahhabist "schools" (cells?) throughout America, the West and the world, where the most radical, most jihadist branch of Islam is preached?

And here's another thing they didn't discuss ... thank God:

Pelosi, the first woman House speaker, said she had not discussed King Abdullah's recent criticism of the U.S. occupation of Iraq ...

"Occupation?!" What would NanFran have discussed? The criticism, or the fact that it's not an occupation, but an action designed to make Iraq strong enough that it doesn't need foreign troops on its soil.

If our actions in Iraq are an occupation, why are we training Iraqi soldiers and police to take over for us, and allowing them more and more control? Why are we defending a government and giving it time to solidify if our intent is to occupy?

The correct word, NanFran, is "the U.S. protection of Iraq." We are there as protectors, not occupiers. Germany occupied France in WWII; we liberated it. Russia occupied eastern Europe during the Cold War; we crushed their system so they were forced out.

Hot on the heels of her attemts to legitimize the thugocracy in Damascus ("The road to Damascas is the road to Peace," she said! Blech.), now she's making a laughing stock of us in Riyadh.

If the AP reporter had more on substance and consequences and less on the fact that NanFran wore a lavender pant suit instead of a repressive abaya, this could have been a useful article. And if the Speaker of the House spoke of principles -- solid American principles of rights and respect -- instead of speaking in mere slogans, this might have been a fruitful trip.

But I'm asking too much of both the reporter and the Speaker. They are who they are and the trip was what it was.

NanFran's Cool Investments

WSJ reports today that Nancy Pelosi is one of several "green investors" participating in a campaign to "save" ski resorts from global warming.

For example, Sugar Bowl Ski Resort here in 2004 launched a "Start Global Cooling" campaign with Clif Bar & Co., a maker of protein bars in Berkeley, Calif. Under the program, Sugar Bowl -- privately owned by a consortium composed of some of the San Francisco Bay Area's wealthiest residents, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- invests about $25,000 to $30,000 a year in wind farms and other renewable energy sources, says Greg Murtha [a strange coincidence there ...], the resort's marketing director. The amount is calculated by multiplying the amount of energy Sugar Bowl uses by the cost per kilowatt hour of the renewable power it's investing in.

NanFran is going to be a bigtime speaker at today's global warming rally in DC, so I wondered, is everything she and Big Bucks hubby Paul invest in green? It turns out Paul's been very careful with the portfolio because he knows it will be under scrutiny and investments in, say, Halliburton, just wouldn't look good. So, here's what the Chronicle found:

The bulk of the Pelosis' money comes from investments in stocks and real estate. Operating through Financial Leasing Services, his San Francisco investment firm, Paul Pelosi owns stock in companies including Microsoft, AT&T, Cisco Systems, Disney, Johnson & Johnson and a variety of tech stocks.

Real estate investments include a four-story office building at 45 Belden St. in the Financial District, office buildings on Battery and Sansome streets near the Embarcadero, a building housing a Walgreens drugstore near Ocean Beach and other commercial property in San Anselmo.

Other investments include a St. Helena vineyard worth between $5 million and $25 million, a $1 million-plus townhome in Norden (Nevada County), and minority interests in the Auberge du Soleil resort hotel in Rutherford, the CordeValle Golf Club in San Martin, and the Piatti Italian restaurant chain.

How very chic-Lib. High tech, homey, wine and cheeze and nice food at nice resorts. Paul Pelosi has done a very good job of avoiding controversial investments -- but you just can't avoid investing in global warming, so let's take apart the Pelosi portfolio.

• High tech companies: Microsoft, Cisco and AT&T are all 100% reliant on electricity and the growing omnipresence of computers is one of the largest drivers of increasing energy demand. Plus, manufacturing all those boards and discs takes a heap of juice. And if you've bought a Microsoft product lately (as opposed to downloading it), you know you get one plastic disc, some paper and a great big box. Not exactly eco-friendly packaging.
  
  
• Disney: Hollywood is second only to the oil industry in SoCal when it comes to pollution. Diesel generators abound, electricity arcs through lights and recording equipment ... and the air conditioned trailers favored by greenie stars. Disney's theme parks attract millions who arrive by jet, car and SUV.
  
  
• Real estate: No word on whether these buildings are green, but they are clustered in older parts of the city, so unless they've undergone major retrofits, they're bigtime greenhouse gas producers. I noted that 45 Belden is home to at least one environmental group and a pack of asbestos-sniffing litigators.
  
  
• Vineyards: Agricultural chemicals are major emitters of greenhouse gases.
  
  
• Resorts and Golf: Is the resort green, or does it churn those heaters and air-conditioners like there's no tomorrow? Is the golf course organic, or do they actually mow it with gas mowers and dose it with ag chemicals? Do people arrive on foot or by car?
  
  
• Italian restaurants: I am not going to criticize investments in Italian restaurants. Forget it.

NanFran can get all hoity-toity about environmental destruction (while she lobbies for a bigger jet!), but the fact of the matter is, unless we're willing to go back to the Dark Ages (a fine time for global cooling), the production of greenhouse gases is indelibly tied to even the most careful investment portfolio.

What Would Tip Do?

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi got so mad at Dick Cheney, she called the Prez to give him a piece of her mind.

I had felt nervous about my post yesterday questioning Hillary's recent action as overly female, but that nervousness was wiped away by this reassuring -- and very humorous -- news. Hillary getting her staff to melt down for her over David Geffen's honest statement about the Clintons was typically Clintonesque, typical of a political hack ... and it reflected certain womanly characteristics that men in politics pretty much don't share. (Well, maybe Dan Foley does.)

As I read of our Dem leader's impulsive and pointless phone call, I thought of Tip O'Neill, the crusty Bostonian Dem House leader from 1977-1987. Would Tip have grabbed the phone to tell Reagan a piece of his mind? Doubtful. He would have poured himself a Scotch, sworn a blue streak, and gotten on with business.

Not NanPo.

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney's comments that the Congressional Democrats' plan for Iraq would "validate the Al Qaeda strategy."

Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."

"And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said. (Fox)

On the Geffen matter, while Hil was saying she was running a positive campaign, whe was directing her staff to be anything but. On this, NanPo criticized the Prez for not welcoming debate because of his Veep's statement -- then behaved like someone who would allow no debate whatsoever.

Cheney's statement was pointed but hardly what Pelosi characterized it to be:

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy. The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

What about that is beneath debate? What about it debases the men and women in the military? What about it questions the patriotism of NanPo and her senile lapdog? And where was NanPo's answer? Non-existent! Because it's "beneath debate!" Says who? We really want to hear why the Dem plan doesn't build up al Qaeda.

Tip would have sucked Cheney's comment in with a deep draw of cigar smoke, washed it down with a barley beverage, and colorfully pointed out errors and shortfalls in Cheney's statements, character and politics. It would have been memorable and probably strategic.

What did Nancy get? Hung out to dry by the President's Chief of Staff. The First Female Speaker of the House didn't even know that you don't herald a call to the President unless you're sure he's in.

The two most powerful women in American politics are doing nothing to promote women in politics by this kind of behavior.

Dems Ignore Heroes, Vote Egos

All but two House Dems joined with 17 cowardly Republicans and denied our troops support, passing the Resolution to Show No Resolve this afternoon on a - vote.

The closing GOP speaker was Sam Johnson of Texas, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, shown here embracing his wife Shirley when he finally returned stateside on Feb. 17, 1973 -- 34 years ago tomorrow. Johnson said:

"Now it's time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already. We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them."

He snapped off a salute as he completed his remarks, and received an ovation from all there, even the hypocrites who, when the applause died down, voted not to stick by our troops. The measure says Congress "will support the troops" but it means nothing, as Pelosi and Murtha conspire to cut the funds the troops need to achieve their mission.

Even as the surge achieves results -- insurgents killed, arrested and fleeing, and calmer streets in Iraq -- Murtha gleefully said the vote "stops the surge for all intents and purposes, because .. they cannot sustain the deployment."

Do you need any more convincing that to Pelosi, Murtha and thier ilk, "victory" means "shame for America?"

Pelosi: Security Comes Second; Money Comes First

Friday is "news I'd rather not deal with" day, the day that's reserved for nasty stuff, on the supposition less people read Saturday papers and Friday night blogs. Following this time-honored tradition, Pelosi will try later today to sneak out a real zinger:

Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who's facing an ongoing federal corruption probe, is being granted a spot on the Homeland Security Committee, according to Democratic aides.

The appointment will be announced Friday, according to one aide who requested anonymity because the decision isn't yet official. (WaPo)

Here's the really juicy stuff:

Jefferson was removed from his seat on the Ways and Means Committee, one of the most important panels in Congress, by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi(Calif.) last summer in an attempt to show how seriously Democrats viewed the allegations of corruption.

Honestly, I can see why you wouldn't want a guy who stashes cash in his freezer on Ways and Means -- but do you want a bribe-taker on Homeland Security? (Note: Add "alleged" as you see fit.) Pelosi is signalling that security is not as important as controlling the money, and that Dem condemnation of corruption is merely symbolic.

Pelosi's "leadership" continues to flounder and fail, as Dem leadership must. The Gordian knot of intertwined and competing interests that is cobbled together into the Democratic Party is simply not manageable, even for someone of Pelosi's considerable political skills.

hat-tip: Gun Toting Liberal via RCP Reader Articles

Safe War Or No War, Says The Dems

Already moving past its Resolution to Show No Resolve, the House is getting on with the attack on the war, promising next to take up funding.

Read what the Dem leaders are saying, and it's evident where they're coming from: Fear of unpleasantness, and distrust of the military. First Peacenik Pelosi:

In a letter to the president on Wednesday, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "thousands of the new troops" being sent into Iraq "will apparently not have the armor and equipment they need to perform the mission and reduce the likelihood of casualties."

Now her pet bulldog, Jack Murtha:

Murtha, a war veteran who advocates pulling troops out of Iraq, has said he wants to forbid the Pentagon from sending additional troops "unless they have adequate training and unless they have adequate equipment."

Murtha, D-Pa., said he believes the Army may have no units that can meet those standards, meaning Bush's attempt to send more troops to Iraq would be checked. Congress also could try to slow the deployment of additional troops by curtailing the Pentagon's practice of extending the duty tours of personnel who have reached the end of their scheduled time in the war zone. (source)

What is adequate armor and equipment? Disposing of the latter first, we have the best equipment of any military on earth and plenty of it, so Pelosi is fabricating a crisis out of thin air. Our troops have the stuff; she just lacks the stuffing to handle wartime leadership.

As for armor, it's a tired argument dating back to the earliest days of the war. Now the vests are there, the off-base vehicles are armed. That Iran has developed a new projectile that is capable of taking down an insanely armed Abrahms tank is not evidence that we are unarmed; it is merely evidence that the field of battle has gotten more dangerous because of direct involvement of Iran.

The desire to stop Iran's powerful new bombs with better armament is typical dove-think. They're all for war as long as no blood is spilled. If the enemy is ingenious and keeps finding new ways to kill us, then either we're at fault for not having enough armor, or for fighting a war in the first place. Of course, it's Iran and its Shia allies in Iraq who are at fault and the solution is not to whine about our armor but to disrupt their operations.

Murtha's comment, as usual, is particularly dispicable. He is the personification of everything that ticks me off about the old fighters who are getting in the way of the new fight. He needs no proof that the Pentagon is, as he alleges, sending under-armed, under-trained troops in. It's poppycock of course; just fodder for the anti-war left.

He wants the troops to not suffer longer deployments. Did he ask them? Did he consider the effect on our fighting if we treat combat duty as calendar-driven instead of need-driven? Did he ask consider that the enemy doesn't think in terms of tours of duty, but in terms of an eternal battle?

The Dem leadership might as well hang banners across their chests saying, "I'm what 'No Will' is all about." It's easier to lead a nation into defeat than it is to lead a nation into victory, and Pelosi, Murtha and their crew are, as usual, taking the easy route.

Art: Blue Crab Blvd.