San Franistan catfight

Fffft-ffffft-row-row! From Breitbart:

Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to seek House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."

Congrats, San Franistan. Your choices are "moonbat" and "moonbattier"!

Quote of the day

BEVERAGE ALERT! Put down your drink before reading this. From Nancy Pe-loco, regarding the "points system" part of the illegal alien sham-nesty bill:

The point system Pelosi refers to would grant those seeking citizenship points based on English proficiency, work history, family status and passing a criminal background check.

“We’re about families and family values,” Pelosi added.

Oh. My. (insert politically correct deity here). The party of abortion-on-demand and "oral sex isn't sex" and running a prostitution ring (er, "escort service") is going to call itself "pro-family"? Pffffff-bwhahahahahahahaha! Oh my...I haven't laughed that hard since Dan Quayle misspelled "potatoe" or Dukakis rode in the tank (before his election went in the tank)!

Pelosi to sue Bush over Iraq bill?

Determined to demonstrate her profound ignorance of how our republican government works, House Speaker Pe-loco caters to her moonbat constituency. From The Hill:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.

Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

Nice to see Pe-loco standing up for normal Americans like the Kostards. Continuing:

“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”

It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, “This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency.”

I wonder if Pe-loco had a problem with her boy Bubba's DOJ stating the following:

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.

Maybe you agree with the concept behind (or usage of) signing statements or maybe you don't. However, it's clear that the very arguments that Bubba's DOJ made were good enough for Bubba, so they'll have to be good enough for Dubya. What am I saying? Since WHEN do liberals adhere to consistency?

Anywho, does anyone want to break it to Nancy that she can't sue the prez for refusing to let her have her way? The Supreme Court has weighed in on this before:

In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.

Pelosi trying to one-up DiFi on corruption

Not content to let DiFi serve as the only California Democrat using her office for personal gain, Nancy Pelosi decided to get in on the "culture of corruption" action herself. From MyWay News:

Republicans are accusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of including a provision in a water redevelopment bill that could benefit property her husband owns in San Francisco.

Aides to the San Francisco Democrat denied any connection, noting that the waterfront improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco and the four rental properties in question are at least a mile away.

Republicans, who raised the issue more than two weeks after the bill passed the House, offered no evidence of benefit to Paul Pelosi's real estate holdings.

"I don't have any facts to say anything untoward has been done here," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

"She should explain to the American people what the earmark is all about and convince people there's no financial benefit to her," he said.

John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said that "on its face it appears to be a conflict of interest."

Pelosi's project was part of the $15 billion Water Resources Development Act that passed the House April 19 by 394-25 and pays for hundreds of projects around the country.

Pelosi's measure would authorize $25 million to improve San Francisco port areas, and also would put some areas off limits to navigation so cruise ships could dock.

Her investor husband gets rental income from four buildings in a nearby commercial district.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said that she added the projects to the bill at the request of the Port of San Francisco and that her husband's holdings were not a consideration. It's "speculative at best" that they would benefit, Hammill said.

Between her and Harry "Land Shark" Reid and DiFi and William "Cool Cash" Jefferson, it looks like the "culture of corruption" label that the Dems used on the GOP last year is simply continuing under new management.

Pelosi to meet with Ahmanutjob?

Not content to resting on her laurels after a meeting with the chinless terrorist-enabling regime of Syria, My Damn...er, "Madame"...Speaker Pelosi wants to cuddle with the top Iranian weirdbeard himself. From San Fran-istan's fishwrap:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, just back from a trip to Syria that sparked sharp criticism from Republicans and the Bush administration, suggested Tuesday that they may be interested in taking another diplomatic trip - to open a dialogue with Iran.

The Democratic speaker from San Francisco and Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, were asked at a press conference in San Francisco Tuesday whether on the heels of their recent trip to the Middle East they would be interested in extending their diplomacy in the troubled region with a visit to Iran.

"Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's) statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him," Lantos said. "Speaking for myself, I'm ready to go -- and knowing the speaker, I think that she might be."

Pelosi did not dispute that statement, and noted that Lantos -- a Hungarian-born survivor of the Holocaust -- brought "great experience, knowledge and judgment" to the recent bipartisan congressional delegation trip to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia in addition to Syria.

Beautiful. I can almost hear Ahmanutjob singing "Kumbaya" as we speak. Continuing:

"I find the president of Iran's remarks to be so repulsive that they are outside the circle of civilized human behavior," Pelosi said, referring to Ahmadinejad's past comments that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map and his questioning of the existence of the Holocaust.

"But a person of Mr. Lantos' stature and personal experience is saying that -- even as a Holocaust survivor and even recognizing the outrageous statements of the president of Iran -- it's important to have dialogue. I think that speaks volumes."

I can almost see the dialogue now...

Pe-loco: Mr. President, it's great to see you! I brought you a gift from my home town. It's a book called 'Heather Has Two Mommies'.

Ahmanutjob: Thank you. You are too kind. Ummm...My Damn Speaker, who is this man you bring with you?

Pe-loco: This is Congressman Tom Lantos. He's a a Hungarian-born survivor of the Holocaust and...

Ahmanutjob: Survivor of the WHAT?

Pe-loco: The Holocaust, sir.

Ahmanutjob: There was no such thing. This infidel is a fraud. Remove him from my presence.

Pe-loco: Sorry, Tom, that sucks for you. Wait in the plane.

Ahmanutjob: My Damn Speaker, where is your woman-garb???

Pe-loco: Oh, how embarassing! My apologies, sir, I'll get Tom to get my Muslim head scarf from the airplane. Now, where were we?

Ahmanutjob: Denouncing your president.

Pe-loco: Oh yes, we were indeed! Anyway, I don't know if you followed the goings-on in Florida in our 2000 election, but...

Finally:

Lantos noted that "with the speaker's support," he has co-sponsored legislation in the House that calls for making available to all countries -- including Iran -- nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes under international oversight by establishing a "nuclear fuel bank."

"So if the Iranian president says that he is developing (nuclear material) for peaceful purposes, we are assisting him in that process," said Lantos, who anticipated the legislation could pass as early as May.

Maybe we could get the UN to administer the "nuclear fuel bank"? They did such a bang-up job with that Oil-For-Food program, didn't they?

News bytes

Pelosi to chinless Syrian dictator: "Israel wants peace talks!" Israel to Pelosi: "Not quite true...and you don't speak for us!" Even the reliably left-leaning Washington comPost is piling on Pelosi. Humiliation ensues.

Polish it any way you like, but with the whole British hostage ordeal in Iran, Iran won and the UK lost. Iran came out smelling like roses, and the West came out looking weak.

Leftardosphere falls for April Fools prank. Karl Rove, you magnificent b@stard! As with Pe-loser, humiliation ensues.

Speaking of Pe-loco's visit to Syria, Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter approved of it (which automatically means it's a bad idea)...and launched into one of his typical anti-Israeli rants.

Al Qaeda wants the Dalai Lama dead, because he's not Muslim. Well, hell, just tell Mr. Lama to get out of Iraq and he should be peachy...oh, wait, he's not in Iraq. Somehow, I'm certain the moonbats can find a way to blame this on Bush.

Bush vs. Congress on pork-laden Iraq spending bill

From Dick Morris:

Democrats in Congress are heading into a game of chicken with the Bush White House akin to the Gingrich-Clinton government shutdown battle of 1995-96. The roles are reversed this time - so the Republicans are likely to prevail.

The consequences will be lasting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will find their party shattered. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be forced to choose sides in their party's schism.

The game will unfold predictably. The House and the Senate will compromise on the differences in their legislation funding the Iraq War; the end product, carrying poison-pill language that sets a deadline for troop withdrawal, will go to the White House to face an inevitable presidential veto. The Democrats' override attempt will fail - and a deadlock will ensue.

Then the Democrats will threaten to withhold funding for the war in Iraq unless the White House agrees to some form of deadline. The Bush administration will reply that it will never agree to a schedule for troop withdrawal - and both sides will glare at the other across an abyss.

But Bush will, inevitably, win the game of chicken. Pelosi and Reid have too much sense to be caught denying funding to troops in combat. Bush will make the price of obstinacy too great for the Democrats to bear.

Nobody will want to be in the position of cutting off funding and appearing to undermine the troops during a war.

But the consequences for Pelosi of a retreat will be serious: She'll leave behind her the party's left - who will never vote for funding without also mandating withdrawal. Pelosi will have to scramble and craft a majority with a combination of Republican votes and support from the center of her own party.

The speaker will probably wind up having to vote against the majority of her Democratic members. That spectacle won't be healthy for her future authority or control.

If the Republicans are smart, they will let Pelosi hang by her own rope and will force her to break her party apart by twisting arms for every last vote to pass a funding bill.
...
The left will not forgive a vote to fund the war without requiring a withdrawal date - but the general electorate will not look kindly on pulling back funds during a war.

For his part, President Bush needs to stand firm as this process unfolds. The split the funding resolution will catalyze in the Democratic Party may be his party's only hope of hanging onto the White House in 2008. He should resist calls for compromise, since any halfway solution or diplomatic wording that could appeal to both sides will rescue the Democrats from the horns of their dilemma - and run most or all of the risks for the troops and the mission in Iraq as the current bills present.

Bush should demand a clean appropriations bill or guarantee a veto. If he doesn't flinch and congressional Republicans don't defect, it will be bad news for the Democrats.

This is a rather rosy assessment by Morris that makes what I believe to be a very faulty assumption. The assumption is that if the Dem Congress sends Bush a pork-laden Iraq appropriations bill and Bush vetoes it, the Dems in Congress would look bad. With the MSM on the Dems' side? Pfffft! Puh-leeeeze!

I recall the government shutdown of 1995-96 quite well. Bubba's approval ratings were quite low before the shutdown, as evidenced by his party's monumental and wholesale electoral #sskicking in November '94. The new GOP Congress sent Bubba a budget that slashed federal spending on a plethora of wasteful (and unconstitutional) programs. The GOP banked on Bubba signing the bill to avoid risking the government shutdown, and since his approval ratings were already low, surely he'd sign it. They bet on the wrong horse.

Bubba got in front of his sycophants in the media and blamed the mean ol' GOP for wanting to shut down the government because he wouldn't let them starve kids and kick old people in the streets. Only a boob would believe that was the GOP's desires, but fortunately for Bubba, many a leftist boob work in the MSM. Bubba and the MSM successfully demonized the GOP Congress for shutting down the government, Bubba's approval ratings rebounded, and he went on to win a decisive re-election effort.

Shoe's on the other foot now. We have a Republican president and a Democrat Congress threatening a train wreck. Who would the MSM demonize? Morris seems to think it will be the Dems who get demonized. I'd like to think he's right on this, but I don't. The MSM is just too freakin' slanted to allow Mistress Nancy and Harry "Land Shark" Reid, not to mention Shrillary and Osamabama, to take a big hit on this. The headlines would read "Bush denies Iraq soldiers funds, food, weapons".

Miss dhimmi in Syria, but Mistress Chicken in D.C.!

That's your House Speaker

Some of you may have seen this late last week, so my apologies for weighing in on it now. The VP had a slight problem with the Murtha-Pelosi "cut and run...er, redeploy 5000 miles away from the war zone...or the money's gone" plan, and replied to their idea thusly:

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The al-Qaida 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."

In other words, Al Qaeda's stated strategy has been to break the will of the American public, and the Pelosi-Murtha plan would, in his opinion, achieve that goal (perhaps, or not, unwittingly).

So how did the nation's first female Speaker respond? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

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."

Nothing says "I'm a serious leader and I demand respect!" quite like whining like a bitch and running to go tattle-tale on the mean ol' Veep.

As Reverse Vampyr observes:

Typical liberalism.

Claim to support the troops.

Attempt to insure America's (and therefore, Bush's) defeat.

Shame any opposition into silence.

Act insulted that their patriotism might be in question.
...
The only thing she forgot to do was claim that Murtha's defeatist plan was "for the children."

The VP may not have questioned her patriotism, but I damned sure do.

The Jackass Party, drunk with their new power, is weary of publicly supporting Murtha's plan