Nancy Pelosi, Compassionate Anti-War Lib
Jiminy, did Nancy Pelosi really say that?
But [Ms. Pelosi's] spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic "base" over her failure to end the war in Iraq.
"Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."
Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."
If they were poor they would have been arrested? What's next - if they were illegal aliens she would have had them deported? Or at least, put them to work doing the lawn and laundry?
I am experiencing shock and awe.
MORE: Or, I guess I just don't know Libs, or San Fran:
San Francisco - the liberal, left-coast city conservatives love to mock - could be undergoing a transformation when it comes to homeless people. Although the city would still be a poor choice for a pep rally for the war in Iraq, indications are that residents have had it with aggressive panhandlers, street squatters and drug users.
"Maybe there has been an epiphany," says David Latterman, president of Fall Line Analytics, a local market research firm. "People have realized they can hate George Bush but still not want people crapping in their doorway."
Consider the case of David Kiely, who has lived in the South of Market area for 18 years. He bought a home when prices were low and now lives there with his wife, Jenny, and their three boys, ages 7, 4 and 1. Kiely insists "we're not some white, yuppie parents saying we can't take this." In fact, he says, they donate to programs for homeless people at Glide Memorial Methodist Church and the food bank at St. Anthony Dining Room. But he's finally saying "enough is enough."
"I don't expect it to be Cow Hollow or Pacific Heights," he says. "But the other day Jenny is bringing the kids back from the park, and some guy is standing on the corner throwing up on himself."
What's the old saying - a conservative is a liberal who has been thrown up on by reality?

Where are the Margaret Thatchers of America?
Dana Milbank, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are an embarrassment to all women. :)
Posted by: Ann | October 10, 2007 at 01:09 PM
I'm experiencing peals of laughter.
Posted by: clarice | October 10, 2007 at 01:11 PM
Poor Madame Speaker...whatever must the neighbors think?
Posted by: Enlightened | October 10, 2007 at 01:20 PM
this does not show Ms. Pelosi off in a very flattering light.
I am glad to hear she is actually forced to deal with protestors as opposed to erecting a permanent forcefield like the one that has been erected around bush to keep all dissent hidden from him. (Granted, she wants one, but too bad)
no wonder jenna recently described her pappy as a shut-in.
Posted by: Garth | October 10, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Not possible - must be a right wing conspiracy....Well, soon to be called one..
Posted by: PMII | October 10, 2007 at 01:39 PM
Hallelujah! TM escaped! I promise we were raising bail to get you out!
Posted by: Jane | October 10, 2007 at 01:41 PM
Ooooh a "permanent forcefield" where Bill once roamed Pennsylvania Avenue in search of wanton teenagers.
Get a grip man!
Posted by: Jane | October 10, 2007 at 01:46 PM
What's nice is that we know the size of the left's support. It's very meager.
And, as long as congress gets twits like Larry Craig, and Ron Paul, out there representing republicans, you get to glimpse the problem that comes from NOT BEING BETTER PLACED IN THE MARKET PLACE.
Here's how the market place, works. You want as many customers that are coming in, to view your stuff. That you'll pay advertisers heaps of money to market your products.
You don't put out strange things that taste worst than spinach; and expect that you've traveled very far.
Certainly, the affirmative action crowd's gotten about as far as it's gonna go. And, when they took on the military, and insulted General Petraeus, a majority of people saw Irak in a much better light.
You can't fool people when goals are in sight, thinking that they don't "see land." When they do! Heck, even Christopher Columbus was saved when land was sighted. It's not just President Bush.
And, it's to Bush's credit that he just does his job. The whole polling thing, as a popularity contest, turns out to be downright stupid.
Especially when you're watching the republican field taking shape, now. And, Guiliani manages to show his strengths. As does McCain. (Who thought McCain could look as good as he does? Just as, Woody Allen would say: 80% accrues, just by showing up.) I stole the line from a post this morning at Lucianne.
Again, in the spots where affirmative action took over, we've got terrible problems! Last night, Rudy nailed it when he said IF we can fix the Department of Education, we can cure the problems America faces, ahead. And, he added: The sky would be the limit.
Most people hate what the Ma & Pa Kettle Show is doing. (And, they are doing it, because the Bonkeys bought into an idea that if they hate Bush, they can get the country to follow their lead.) I don't think this philosophy works.
But there's no new ideas out there for the old political thugs.
As a matter of fact, nothing pulls Hillary down like Pelosi. Where if you had to bet? You'd bet these two women hate each other.
Yeah. Politics needs more mud. And, more cat fights. Who thought this campaign up? It's got a very stupid track record, so far.
Posted by: Carol Herman | October 10, 2007 at 02:15 PM
Hallelujah! Free at last! Thank God almighty, TM is free at last!
Posted by: Sue | October 10, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Garth, You didn't really misinterpret Jenna Bush so foolishly did you. By "Pappy" she means her grandfather, Bush 41, not her father.
Posted by: bio mom | October 10, 2007 at 02:34 PM
Ann
Sorry to disappoint but Dana Milbank is a male.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Milbank
Posted by: ordi | October 10, 2007 at 02:34 PM
Sorry to disappoint but Dana Milbank is a male.
He's still an embarrassment to all women!
Posted by: Jane | October 10, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Yes he is IMO he is a sissy.
Posted by: ordi | October 10, 2007 at 02:45 PM
It's kind of a pain to live near an "encampment". And when you pay a lot for your house*, you expect at least a little tranquility there. I'm with Nancy on this one.
*Address cheerfully supplied by the anti-war coalition.
Posted by: Walter | October 10, 2007 at 02:47 PM
ordi: So glad you said Dana Millbank is a "male" and didn't say he was a "man!"
Posted by: centralcal | October 10, 2007 at 02:52 PM
The Writer of the San Fran article is CW Nevius..At one time he was one of my favorite sports writers. About 5 years ago he moved into the hard news biz..
For what reason i don't know..Heck of a guy.
Just an FYI
Posted by: HoosierHoops | October 10, 2007 at 03:01 PM
This is hardly surprising rhetoric from a leftist.
Charity seldom begins at home with them. The "victims" they profess to care so deeply about are abstractions to be used for political power.
Forcibly expropriate billions from your neighbors and give it to a bureaucracy to poorly and inefficiently serve the homeless out of sight and mind? Of course.
Give personally to the Salvation Army? Not likely.
Actually have to personally smell, see, talk to or help one? In a pig's eye.
Posted by: Barney Frank | October 10, 2007 at 03:06 PM
The FIRST rule of civilization is control of one's bodily functions, exercising them only at appropriate times and under suitably hygienic conditions. It is nice to know that, while our Left-flying friends have little truck with, say Socrates or Hume, they do know that those who cannot be safely admitted to society must be dealt with in an uncompromising manner. Hey, even Libbies have noses.
Posted by: megapotamus | October 10, 2007 at 03:09 PM
They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders."
LOL.
Posted by: Sue | October 10, 2007 at 03:18 PM
Uh Carol..
What's nice is that we know the size of the left's support. It's very meager
I don't think i would measure the support of the left in the Democratic party by anything that goes on in SF..I'm just saying..
Also..
Certainly, the affirmative action crowd's gotten about as far as it's gonna go. And, when they took on the military, and insulted General Petraeus, a majority of people saw Irak in a much better light.
I didn't know the affirmative action crowd did anything.. i thought it was moveon.org's ad..
And i really don't think the majority of people see Iraq in a 'better light'. Of course i have a kid in Iraq..The only light the hoopster sees is the one at the end of the tunnel in 6 months when he gets home..
better light? jeez...
For the record..I have always appreciated the support you guys have shown me and my family..so don't take this post wrong..but better light? nah..we just came to the defence of a General who was smeared.
Regards Carol..just my opinion
Posted by: HoosierHoops | October 10, 2007 at 03:18 PM
Hopefully San Fran Nan will be moaning about the Repubs playing the video of her and "dingy" Harry Reid and their ilk dissing OUR troops and their effort as well as the "battle of Iraq"
centralcal
I chose my words carefully. LOL
Posted by: ordi | October 10, 2007 at 03:25 PM
Perhaps San Fran Nan should take a lesson from the Canadians:
Canada Refuses Entry to CODEPINK Cofounder Medea Benjamin and Retired Colonel Ann Wright
You gotta love the first sentence of the article:
... morePosted by: Sara | October 10, 2007 at 03:35 PM
Well I guess this does answer the question of the day: Is it possible to hate George Bush and still not want people to crap in your doorway?
Posted by: capitano | October 10, 2007 at 03:38 PM
Ordi,
I new Dana was a boy, but now I'm not even sure Hillary is a woman. Come to think of it....San Fran Man?
It's a conspiracy to never elect a woman. Thats it!
Posted by: Ann | October 10, 2007 at 03:47 PM
Jeez, and all along I thought the problem of the poor and homeless in San Fran was that they were allowed to loiter wherever they chose, and that they were never arrested.
Or that's what it looked like whenever I visited their fair city.
Posted by: Forbes | October 10, 2007 at 03:51 PM
If I lived in San Fran, I would be highly tempted to wear my
"BUSH WILL SAVE YOUR A--,IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT"
T-shirt and hang some laundry in her trees.
(OK, I really don't own that t-shirt)
Posted by: Ann | October 10, 2007 at 04:06 PM
I guess Bush knows how poor Nancy feels after being stalked by the likes of Cindy Sheehan.
I think this is a problem both parties have. Really obnoxious extremes. I do think the problem is much worse for the Democrats. And I have to say, it could not happen to a nicer bunch of demagogues. Hoisted on their own petard as it were.
However, I think that certain people on the right have allowed themselves to overlook some pretty offensive stuff coming from their own ranks as well.
Sometimes people just want what they want so badly they are not as picky as they should be about who they hang out with.
But so far as I know the right at least stays at home, whatever their faults they do not pitch tents on other people's property.
Posted by: Terrye | October 10, 2007 at 04:22 PM
Terrye, you mention the "really obnoxious extremes" on both political sides, which reminds me that I have a question for the sage commenters here.
It is about the Paul supporters. Who are these people? Seriously, I think some are genuinely his supporters, but I have feeling that some (maybe a lot) are lefty weirdos trying really hard to skew things on the Republican side. For a relatively small group they sure seem to be everywhere all at once on the internet (look at internet poll results). Also, I live in a city (very conservative) of about 500K and 2 months ago there were Ron Paul signs on green construction paper plastered all over the whole city. And his raising of $5 million seems suspect too . . . unless Hsu sent him some contributions before he got arrested!
What do y'all think?
Posted by: centralcal | October 10, 2007 at 04:44 PM
After reading Ezra Klein's post on how conservatives are the thugs who are always being intrusive into good people's lives, like the Graeme Frost family, I question Speaker Pelosi's comments blaming anti-war activists for invading her "space." It was probably Michelle Malkin posing as Cindy Sheehan.
Posted by: Terry | October 10, 2007 at 04:44 PM
central, I think you're right.
I'm planning on starting a similar operation in support of Kucinich---Just kidding.
Posted by: clarice | October 10, 2007 at 04:53 PM
Terry-
Yes, I've followed those two stories from the left today.
While I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Malkin talking to the Frost's renter, she didn't stalk them. And she certainly didn't camp out in their yard and build a Buddha.
Posted by: MayBee | October 10, 2007 at 04:59 PM
Clarice - lol - I see Ace of Spades has a link to Paul vs. Kucinich debate.
Posted by: centralcal | October 10, 2007 at 05:04 PM
Maybee:
Sometimes I wonder if Malkin is on Soros's payroll.
I have not just seen that reference to going after the Frosts on left wing sites. AJ at Strata-Sphere and Ed Morrisey at Captains Quarters have said that the right needs to concentrate on the policy and leave the personal attacks on the Frosts out of it.
I think the Democrats count on certain people on the right going after someone like the Frosts. They know it makes Republicans look bad and that is the whole point.
I think Bush was right to veto the bill, but the debate should be about how much to expand S-CHIP, not making personal attacks on this family who are already able to get some assistance through the program. They are tax paying citizens who work for a living, not criminals or deviants or liars or welfare cheats.
I think the Democrats want to expand this program way too much and I think the tax on smokes is wrong, but it would be nice if just every now and then Republicans refrained from doing just exactly what the Democrats want them to. I swear they play them like violins sometimes.
Posted by: Terrye | October 10, 2007 at 05:32 PM
centralcal:
I think the Ron Paul people are the real deal. I do not think they are lefties at all, and yes they are a tad loony.
But there are lots of loons out there.
Look at Tancredo. The man wants to nuke Mecca, he actually acts as if the whole North American Union thing just might be a real conspiracy, can't seem to make his mind up on that one. He wants to stop all immigration, not just illegal immigration..and he still up there on that stage along with Ron Paul acting as if he has a shot at this thing.
But it is very true that the righties have too much respect for private property to camp out in somebody's yard.
Posted by: Terrye | October 10, 2007 at 05:37 PM
I'm sick of legislation by anecdote and phony victim political ads, Terry.
Per Steyn (NRO The Corner), in a city with 4% unemployment, this well-educated couple with 4 children ALL of whom are in expensive private schools, Mr Frost works only "intermittently" and Mrs Frost works only part time--not a choice I'd make. In any event, despite having substantial personal assets which are not counted under the present program and despite choosing to work full time, their children were already covered by SCHIP. (Reminds me of the perscriotion drug fight when they had the mother of a rich guy who herself had substantial assets claim she had to collect bottles and cans to pay for her meds.)
Everytime they try this, I hope there will be a thorough investigation--the reporters sure won't do it.
Posted by: clarice | October 10, 2007 at 05:41 PM
***despite choosing NOT to work full time****
Posted by: clarice | October 10, 2007 at 05:42 PM
Potato chips, s chips lets have a party and just give stuff away.
If there are no asset tests, and States can set their own income tests ( so that $83K and $72K in annual income can qualify for a free ride ) this program is seriously flawed.
If 700,000 adults including some childless adults are on the rolls across the country in the Child Health Insurance Program ( CHIP ) then something is seriously wrong.
I thought the whole pitch was there are like 500,000 unserved poor children. Why not take the adults out of the Child program and serve them all?
Democrats dont want to debate the merits of the program, they want to demogogue this. That is why they sent a 12 year old out to Milli Vanilli their script. The minute anyone said anything about the family, it was going to be called "Swiftboating".
Posted by: Gmax | October 10, 2007 at 05:52 PM
I think the Ron Paul people are the real deal. I do not think they are lefties at all, and yes they are a tad loony.
I think they are lefties - in fact the Obama/ Richardson crowd seems to be constantly talking about him.
Posted by: Jane | October 10, 2007 at 05:52 PM
oops!
Posted by: Jane | October 10, 2007 at 05:53 PM
I think the Democrats count on certain people on the right going after someone like the Frosts. They know it makes Republicans look bad and that is the whole point.
Yeah, but I think that's the Dem's whole plan in putting a kid on national radio to speak for a political party to rebut the Presidential Radio address. This family made a choice (I don't agree with Captain Ed's assertion that they've been exploited) to be the face of a policy, and therefore the Right arguing against the Family to argue against the policy is going to happen naturally.
Then the Dems can claim that a poor child and a working family has been "attacked" by the big mean Right. I've seen some mean stuff, mostly by commenters, but what Malkin said and did would be totally acceptable if done by a reporter.
I do think bloggers, including Malkin, can go too far, can be too tenacious, and the sheer number going after one target can be overwhelming.
However, just as clarice is tired of legislation by anecdote, I am tired of newspaper article by "look at these unhinged critics" followed by the worst of the comments from the worst of humanity.
People on all sides of issues, when exposed to the public, start seeing the worst side of society. Listing them doesn't prove the critics wrong nor does it make those that are being criticized correct.
I do hope the Dems told the Frosts this was coming.
Posted by: MayBee | October 10, 2007 at 06:04 PM
Terrye and Jane: I think they (Paul supporters) are both the real deal loonies AND lefties. However, I am more and more convinced that proportionally they are more lefty.
Anyway, time will tell if I am right. I was just curious about what others thought.
Posted by: centralcal | October 10, 2007 at 06:11 PM
Gmax,
The use of the Frost
dudsfamily as propaganda devices may well have been plotted right down to the reaction, including the choreographed reaction to the reaction. It's similiar to Kabuki and relies upon an excellent understanding of the intellectual capacity of the intended audience.Knee jerk begets knee jerk and emotion dribbles from sea to shining sea.
Your response is perfectly logical, completely understandable and absolutely useless for convincing the handwringing empaths who believe that the purpose of government is to coddle the irresponsible. We must work tirelessly upon the presentation of logic in "compassionate" terms - the Frost's are actually
thievesgreedy capitalists who havestolenused "necessary medical benefits" meant for the "truly needy".Hmmm... that didn't come out quite right. The "compassion" thing is very difficult to achieve when dealing with
thievesthe improvident waiting anxiously for their inheritance to arrive.Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 10, 2007 at 06:18 PM
Michelle Malkin has an update on the protestors outside Pelosi's house . . . except, they are NOT outside her house at all. Oh, no! The Police were called, and the curbs painted to not allow parking and protesting, so the Pink Protestwhores had to move further down (or up?) the street and are now driving Pelosi's neighbors nuts. But all is calm and peaceful at Madame Speakers!
Posted by: centralcal | October 10, 2007 at 06:22 PM
Now this is interesting
Investigations of Members on Rise
Federal investigators are hinting that a fresh wave of campaign-related theft and corruption investigations of Members of Congress are moving through the pipeline, signaling that indictments may be on the horizon.
Sh_t about to hit the fan?
Posted by: ordi | October 10, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Sorry the artile is a pay per view
Here is a little more of it.
Federal investigators are hinting that a fresh wave of campaign-related theft and corruption investigations of Members of Congress are moving through the pipeline, signaling that indictments may be on the horizon.
According to multiple sources and independent confirmation from agency officials, the Justice Department currently is honing in on the possible misuse of campaign money by Members and political candidates for personal country club dues, health club fees, non-campaign-related travel costs and other expenses that candidates are prohibited from paying out of their campaign war chests.
The Federal Election Commission also confirmed that it currently is investigating 10 embezzlement cases involving federal campaign committees — four more than its entire caseload in half a decade.
Officials from both agencies declined to name the Members or candidates involved in the investigations, which were first revealed at a legal seminar for the Practicing Law Institute in Washington, D.C., late last week by Craig Donsanto, head of the Justice Department’s election crimes branch, and David Mason, the FEC’s Republican-nominated vice chairman. A Justice Department spokesman confirmed Tuesday that corruption cases involving lawmakers and other public officials remain 'a high priority for the Department of Justice.'
The piece mentions one specific Republican -- a former Congressman -- and a current sitting Democratic Congressman. Clearly there will be more.
H/T Influencepeddler
influence peddler
Posted by: ordi | October 10, 2007 at 06:37 PM
Regarding Ron Paul and his supporters--I know some folks who are actively campaigning for Mr. Paul because they send me literture on him all the time.
These supporters are so right wing--they've almost closed the gap to the left.
Posted by: glasater | October 10, 2007 at 06:43 PM
Riell Hunter (National Inquirer, Page 6, Mikey Kaus, Huff Po) hinting she's Edwards' honey.
Posted by: clarice | October 10, 2007 at 06:49 PM
One of San Fran Nan's neighbors speaks. He is NOT pleased.
I am one of the aggravated neighbors - and this "news" broke right outside my back gate through which I glared at the guitar strumming, wine-sipping, middle aged hippy ladies dressed like pink Mama Cass fairies, waving peace and anti-war signs at the honking cars streaming by.
Code Pink and My Yellow House
Posted by: ordi | October 10, 2007 at 06:51 PM
Ooh, Sara 3:35--note the author of the article is Medea Benjamin!
Posted by: Jim C. | October 10, 2007 at 07:06 PM
--They are tax paying citizens who work for a living, not criminals or deviants or liars or welfare cheats.--
When you volunteer your kid to read some scripted remarks in a national political rebuttal it shouldn't come as a surprise if your story is looked into. What their story reveals is they have a big house, four kids in private school and both work part time. So in fact they are asking their neighbors (me for instance) to work full time so that they can receive my tax dollars while staying at home. Nice work if you can get it. A little more such digging is needed not less.
Incidentally, as Malkin pointed out, why is it if a NYT reporter talks to them or their neighbor it's 'reporting' but if she does it's 'harrassment'?
Posted by: Barney Frank | October 10, 2007 at 07:07 PM