The new face of the Democrats

By Gregory J. Hand
web posted October 15, 2001 

House Democrats have chosen California Representative Nancy
Pelosi, 61, as their new minority whip, giving her a 118 to 95
victory over her only opposition, 11-term Maryland
Representative Steny Hoyer. The whip is the position second in
command to House minority leader Dick Gephardt, and is the
person responsible for rounding up the needed votes to pass
legislation. In January she will replace outgoing whip David
Bonior, the "Pit Yorkie" as Rush Limbaugh refers to him, who is
stepping down to run for the governorship of Michigan.

This is supposedly important, or so we are told, because this is
the highest position to be held by a woman in Congress, ever.
Big deal. The gender of the minority whip is about as significant
as hair color, ethnic background, religious affiliation, or sexual
orientation, for that matter. Leave it to the left, however, to
highlight such irrelevancy, if only to perpetuate the victim status
of women, yet another in a long line of sufferers from those
vicious, evil, heterosexual, Christian white men.

"This is difficult turf to win on, for anyone, but for a woman
breaking ground here it was a tough battle and ... we made
history," Pelosi said after the vote, doing her part to dramatize
her ‘struggle' against oppression. But how "difficult," as she put
it, could it really be? We are relentlessly told how tolerant, how
progressive, how diverse the Democrats are. This is, after all, a
political party that has extremely strict quotas at its televised
conventions lest anyone think they do not care about minorities.
For such enlightened people to elect a woman should be about
as newsworthy as Bill Clinton with an intern.

Pelosi also said she was not seeking support because she hoped
to add a female face to her party's House leadership, which is
just nonsensical, but added, "There's a great deal of excitement
across the country about it." There is? Perhaps a little bit, but
only at the Pelosi household, Democratic Party regional offices,
and feminist hangouts like NOW's headquarters and abortion
clinics.

In all honesty this was all about her being a woman, because
anything different would go against the reality that liberals are
obsessed with such things. She won because she was a woman,
because the Democratic House caucus votes primarily along
those symbolic lines. Had Representative Hoyer been
flamboyantly gay, or had a member of the Congressional Black
Caucus also run, the House Democrats would have all but
imploded in angst over which particular minority to choose.

Outside of leftist enclaves Pelosi is probably not that well known,
despite her assertions that the nation is riveted over her election,
so to those that are not familiar she is a rabid leftist, one of the
many mean faced, man hating, abortion obsessed feminists who
make up the Democratic caucus. There are others, such as Rosa
DeLauro, Nita Lowey, Louise Slaughter and Lynn Woolsey in
the House, or Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton in the Senate,
soul sisters with their perpetual sneers and unending whining.

The daughter of former Baltimore mayor and Congressman
Thomas D'Alessandro, Jr., she represents California's 8th
District, most of the city of San Francisco, and usually captures
somewhere around 85 per cent of the vote in this predominantly
liberal cesspool. According to the Los Angeles Times, she is also
the fourth wealthiest member of the California House Caucus,
her net worth having been pegged between $16.2 and $58.0
million. This, of course, reveals two things: The first is that Pelosi
is yet another multimillionaire limousine liberal, which in California
are a dime a dozen. The second is that campaign finance laws
which permit people to disclose such a ridiculous margin of net
worth are worthless. Of what use, besides showing millionaire
status, is giving such a wide disparity?

Speaking of money, Pelosi is fanatical on campaign finance
reform, almost as much as she is on abortion. For example, in a
1998 press release complaining about how Republicans were
holding up passage of the Meehan-Shays bill, since "the
Republican leadership wants to keep the status quo," she
lamented that:



"Women in America cannot afford for the current system of big
money politics to go on. According to a recently released study
by the Joyce Foundation of Chicago, 81 per cent of all individual
congressional campaign donors who gave $200 or more to one
or more congressional candidates in the 1996 elections were
men. How does a single mother justify a five or ten dollar
contribution, when Tobacco or other industry giants can funnel
tens of thousands of dollars into a campaign? Individual donors
cannot compete with soft money."



How campaign finance became a battle for gender equity is
something of a stretch, not to mention an absurd argument to
advance that cause. Also, who is disturbed enough to bother
breaking down such statistics, and how is that sexist? What
Pelosi does not bother to explain is to whom those men gave
their money; were they strictly donating to other men?; or why
she would assume that the status quo is poor, helpless single
mothers versus evil, male industry giants. Then again, the shtick
about helpless women is the domain of feminists like Pelosi, not
to mention the Lifetime Television Network.

If anyone knows about big money donors, however, it would
certainly be Nancy Pelosi. In the 1999-2000 election cycle,
Pelosi raised approximately four hundred and ten thousand
dollars, 68.5 per cent of which came from PACS. The ‘industry
giant' that supports Pelosi is not big tobacco, but big labor. Her
largest PAC contributor was the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees, followed by the
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union, the Teamsters Union and
the United Auto Workers. Breaking down her contributors by
industry, the top four were, in order, Transportation Unions,
Industrial Unions, Building Trade Unions, and Public Sector
Unions. Big tobacco should be so generous, especially if they
can confiscate other people's money to use like labor unions do.

Clearly then, she does not have much use for the ‘single mother,'
or any other contributor who does not give a lot of money.
During that same election cycle, only 2.7 per cent of the money
she raised came from those who gave less than two hundred
dollars. Doing a little better with the wealthier set, 25.1 per cent
was raised by individual contributions above two hundred. To
paraphrase Pelosi, how does a single mother justify a five or ten
dollar contribution when all those big labor organizations, or her
rich friends, can funnel tens of thousands of dollars into her
campaign?

Up with campaign finance reform, as previously stated, Pelosi is
an abortion fanatic. "American women have a constitutionally
protected right to choose," she announced in 1999, pulling yet
another hidden text of the Constitution out of thin air, a nasty
habit liberals are predisposed to have.

When George W. Bush signed an executive order ending United
States aid to foreign family planning groups that provide
abortions, she remarked that the order "will punish the poorest
women in the world to satisfy an extreme right-wing
constituency." It is absurd to think that a refusal by the United
States government to fund abortions across the globe is
somehow a punishment, as these women have other alternatives,
the first of which is to not get pregnant in the first place. It is not
the responsibility of the United States to provide abortions to
poor women in other parts of the world, and if it is so important
to women like Pelosi, perhaps she should take some of her many
millions and pay for them herself.

Regarding the infanticide known as partial birth abortions, Pelosi
stated that "all abortions taking place in the third trimester are for
reasons of serious fetal abnormality or risk the life of the mother,"
which, to be extremely kind, is not the truth. For those not
persuaded, among the bountiful testimony showing the
‘ignorance' of Pelosi's statement are these two: Nancy Romer,
FACOG, Chairman, Dept. of Ob/Gyn for Miami Valley Hospital
in Ohio, remarked, "People deserve to know that the partial-
birth abortion is never medically indicated either to save the
health of a woman or preserve her future fertility," adding, "This
procedure is currently not an accepted medical procedure." Dr.
Martin Haskell told the American Medical News, a publication
of the American Medical Association, in a tape-recorded
interview that eighty percent of partial birth abortions are purely
elective, and about twenty percent are done for genetic reasons.

Returning to Pelosi's recent election, which apparently gripped
the nation, lawmakers voted by secret ballot, with some refusing
to identify their favorite candidate even after casting their vote.
"Nobody knows where I am," said Representative Earl Pomeroy
(D-N.D.), after leaving the Cannon Caucus Room where the
election was held.

While it would seem strange that Pomeroy would not choose to
disclose who he did or did not support, it would not be all that
irrational for him to fear retribution from Pelosi should he not do
as she requested. There is the precedent of Representative Ellen
Tauscher, who like Pelosi is a California Democrat.

Tauscher represents part of northern California east of Oakland,
and also had the misfortune of publicly announcing her support
for Hoyer in his race against Pelosi for House minority whip, and
of also being the only member of the California House caucus to
not support Pelosi. Apparently there is an unwritten rule that
Californians should stick together.

It was not long after voicing her support for Hoyer that Tauscher
went public over growing rumors that state Senator John Burton
(D-San Francisco), a close political ally of Pelosi's, planned to
weaken Democratic support in her Bay Area district as a
payback. "I think these threats [of political reprisal] are
inappropriate and they ought to be stopped," Tauscher
complained, "Considering the close relationship between Nancy
and John Burton, I think she could have them stopped." Like
Pelosi would want to.

Pelosi dismissed the allegations as "a waste of my time,"
especially since her time is better spent fund raising or demanding
that U.S. taxpayers underwrite abortion clinics across the globe.
"First of all, there are no threats," she added, "Those of us who
attend the meetings regularly know our thrust is to bring all 32
[Democratic House] members back, to add some members and
to improve difficult seats."

Pelosi also said Tauscher, whom she helped win a close first
election in 1996, never came to her with any of the concerns
Tauscher now has publicized. At the time the accusations were
leveled, Pelosi said she believed the charges ultimately not affect
her campaign for the whip position, stating, "I'm going to win this
race." She then accused her opponent of evildoing, stating, "I
think this is a tactic on the part of [Hoyer's] campaign to
introduce an element of discord." That's it, blame the man.

John Burton was also not happy about Tauscher's claims, stating
that she was "full of beans," adding, "That tells you how dumb
she is." Well, she is a Democrat. Furthermore, he rhetorically
asked, "Why would anyone who is a Democrat want to see a
Republican [in a House seat] instead of her? Our whole game is
to preserve the Democratic majority and try to gain at least one
seat." Given that they have the entire state of California with
which to tinker, eliminating her seat and making it up somewhere
else would not be a very difficult task.

No one is accusing Ellen Tauscher of being the most intelligent
person on Capitol Hill, but then again no one has said that she is
paranoid or delusional, either. If anyone would know how
vindictive and spiteful Democrats would be, it would certainly be
a fellow Democrat. Not that trivial retribution of this sort is
exclusively the domain of the Democratic Party, but there is
certainly adequate precedent to take Tauscher's accusations
more seriously than not. Just looking at Pelosi brings to mind the
phrase, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

The primary reasons for choosing Pelosi was her fundraising
prowess, despite her supposed antipathy towards money in
politics, and that she was a woman, especially since the
Republicans have a black man in their leadership, J.C. Watts,
and there needs to be some sort of equality on the leadership
diversity front. Besides, given her fondness for petty retaliation, it
should not be a difficult task for her to scare her delegation into
voting as she and Gephardt want.

Outside of Washington and the liberal strongholds of California
and the northeast, Pelosi will not come across very well. She and
her followers will naturally complain, as does Hillary, that people
are just afraid of strong women. What she, just like Hillary, will
fail to see is that hostile, angry feminists do not generally endear
themselves to most people. There are plenty of strong women
out there who garner respect and admiration from both men and
women, Margaret Thatcher, Jean Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Dole
and Kay Bailey Hutchinson among them.

Feminists such as Pelosi are just not likeable women except to
the most rabid of the ideologues whose only concern is to
advance an agenda, regardless of who is at the helm. People
generally do not like, or trust for that matter, Hillary Clinton. But
she is a consistent liberal and a very strong advocate and
influential spokesperson for the positions she tries to advance.
To many people the ends justify the means, which explains how
many people could not stand Bill Clinton while he was in office,
but supported him nonetheless.

Republicans should be thanking the Democrats that Pelosi was
elected to her leadership position. If this embittered feminist is
the face of the Democratic Party, in addition to Tom "Tweedle
Dee" Daschle and Dick "Tweedle Dumb" Gephardt, Republicans
should have an easy time convincing the nation how vacuous and
radical the Democrat's positions are. Pelosi's ascension will give
the Democrats a couple of public relations points in the short
term, but it will only backfire as America becomes more familiar
with her and the militant ideas she brings to the table. But who's
complaining?

Gregory J. Hand is a political and social commentator whose
weekly columns disclose his personal passion for conservative
issues. His columns appear regularly at NewsCorridor,
OpinioNet, and Ether Zone, and he is also a contributing writer
with Enter Stage Right. He has a B.A. in Economics from
Wofford College. You can view the complete catalog of all of his
works on GregoryHand.com, and can reach him at
ghand@gregoryhand.com.

Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com