Recent political events could start one to wondering if Pelosi's goal wasn't to elect Democrat House members, but a number of House boys, instead.
It sure seems as though Glenn Greenwald is a real Nancy Boy and thanks to John Murtha, he isn't alone. Murtha did a blogger conference call and made it clear he was a Nancy boy, too. I find it amazing that the alleged party of the people doesn't want anyone but one person controlling the point of view. Talk about group-think, geesh! How telling.
It is painfully obvious that Pelosi supported Murtha for one very simple and extremely common reason -- because unlike Hoyer, with whom she has a tense and uncomfortable working relationship and with whom she has worked at cross-purposes in the past, Murtha is her ally and supporter. Murtha held a blogger conference call a couple of days ago and in response to every question, he repeatedly emphasized that his intention was to concentrate on Iraq and that in all other areas, he would "do what Nancy wants." He's a Pelosi loyalist and ally and so she supported him for that job over someone who isn't.
If Greenwald isn't a Nancy boy, how else to explain this. Good heavens, it would seem their vision isn't to have House members capable of independent thought, they'd rather have a bunch of House boys, instead.
The mindless group-think driving the media's caricatures of Nancy Pelosi is truly astounding to behold, even considering the source. She's not even Speaker yet, and they've already pronounced her to be a bitchy, vindictive shrew incapable of leading because she's consumed by petty personal bickering rather than serious and substantive considerations. And all of this is based on nothing.
Rut roh, I think Glenn may have Mother issues, too. I've read most all of the stories on Pelosi. Greenwald's language is far worse than anything I've read. Yes, they are rightfully pointing out that the Speaker-elect appears to have allowed her personal feelings to get in the way of sound political judgment. Based on nothing? What has Greenwald been reading? His piece does as much to point out her emerging faults as any of the criticism I've read.


Yawn
Bring Back Large Dennis Hastert
Bring back the free-thinkin' & votin' Repblicun majority
We're all doomed
Nancy P doesn't rule with an iron fist
and she dresses better than Republicun women too
Yawn
Posted by: Ed Muntin | Friday, November 17, 2006 at 12:33 PM
wow, you are truly an idiot.
Posted by: nova silverpill | Friday, November 17, 2006 at 01:12 PM
You are, Reihl, you know. You're as dumb as a hatful of assholes.
Posted by: Steve Largento | Friday, November 17, 2006 at 01:57 PM
Nice to see right-wingers, despite their bloody losses with this election, choose not to scale back on the misogyny of which, among many other flaws Republiconservatarians seem to share, the voters made clear they'd had enough.
"Rut roh, I think Glenn may have Mother issues, too."
Rut roh, I think Riehl may have baseless castration fears...
Posted by: teh l4m3 | Friday, November 17, 2006 at 06:34 PM
Oh noooooooo who let the Scooby-Doo fan club in?
Posted by: Cindi | Friday, November 17, 2006 at 07:19 PM
I find it amusing that when the Republicans held majority, these same left liberal lunatics were jumping on every story that came out about Republicans, treating these same papers as if everything they wrote was gospel. NOW the shoe is on the other foot and they cannot take the criticism. No... when the papers write something abut the right, it must be correct, but when they write something abut the left, it is wrong to do.
These people are a joke and the next two years are going to be a blast. Hell, it already is.
Posted by: spree | Friday, November 17, 2006 at 07:47 PM
You said it... I think the next two years are going to be Congress du Soleil. Boooyaahhhhh!
Especially with hats full of assholes worn by asshats....... Great jargon. Now grab that rope and wrap yourself around it so we can clap and cheer as you spin.
Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, November 17, 2006 at 08:16 PM
Wow...that was one of the most unsubstansive things I have read on Pelosi. The reasons you disagree with Greenwald is because you dislike women and especially Pelosi. Your group think critism ignores the obvious fact that Hoyer was elected not Murtha as well as completely disregarding the reason Greenwald gives for prefering Murtha, she has worked better with Murtha and prefers that relationship. Read Greenwald's entire piece, he addresses every issue you bring up.
Posted by: Buckley Roberts | Saturday, November 18, 2006 at 12:50 AM
Buckley Roberts: why do people who disagree with women hate them? Why is it group think to know your subject well enough that you see the same definition in others' words? Greenwald? Pleeeease!!
Posted by: Sue | Saturday, November 18, 2006 at 02:12 PM
I thought it was Greenwald who dislikes women.
Posted by: Phoenix | Saturday, November 18, 2006 at 05:53 PM