Speaker Nancy Pelosi talks about declaring a national emergency for gun regulations

A transcript of Pelosi's comments are here:

just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.

You want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today, the one year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic president can do that. Democratic president can declare emergencies as well. So, the precedent that the President is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.

And of course, we will respond accordingly when we review our options. First we have to see what the President actually says.

Calls for more gun control

President Obama at the Urban League on Wednesday:

But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- (applause) -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense. . . .

From The Hill newspaper:

“I support what the president said yesterday,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “I thought his comments were very thoughtful [and] provided leadership when he said we need to build a national consensus to reduce violence in our country.” . . . “With the schedule we have, we’re not going to get into a debate on gun control,” [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)] told reporters. "But I'm very happy, I'm glad the president made this statement, because it's something that needs to be done. But we're not going to address gun control." . . .

Mayor Bloomberg on police striking:

Well, I would take it one step further. I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, we're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you. Unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.' After all, police officers want to go home to their families. And we're doing everything we can to make their job more difficult but, more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor-piercing bullets. The only reason to have an armor-piercing bullet is to go through a bullet-resistant vest. The only people that wear bullet-resistant vest are our police officers. And that's true across this whole country. So we should -- at some point we have to understand this as our children or our grandchildren or us. But for the police officers, it's much more immediate. Because when you or I hear shots, we run away. They run towards it. . . .

Remember Pelosi's claim that Fast and Furious investigation is all about Republicans "going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn voter suppression initiatives in the states"

"Don't forget they are going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn voter suppression initiatives in the states.  This is no accident, it no coincidence, it is a plan on the part of Republicans."
Mark Levin responds to Pelosi's statement.



Mark Levin mentions over 200 Mexicans killed with guns given out by operation Fast and Furious.  It turns out that number might be low.





Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation": "We've had over 300 Mexican nationals killed directly attributable to this Fast and Furious operation, where they brought those guns into Mexico. A former Marine and a Border Patrol agent by the name of Brian Terry lost his life.  With Watergate you had a second-rate burglary."

Some dumb political quotes from 2011

Here are some of the dumber quotes:

1) "Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable." Hillary Clinton, 18 days before Mubarak stepped down. January 25, 2011
2) "They have acted like terrorists." Joe Biden on Tea Party Republicans. August 1, 2011.
3) "What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget . . . . We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today." Nancy Pelosi discussing John Boehner's Debt Ceiling bill. July 28, 2011
4) "Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They're impossible to find and don't exist." Harry Reid asserting that there aren't any jobs created by millionaires. December 12, 2011
5) "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy." Joe Biden, December 19, 2011

Stimulus reasoning gone made

Liberals somehow think that Pelosi is intelligent. Just look at her statements on Haiti or Krugman's statements on 9/11.

After the quake, Nancy Pelosi said: “I think that this can be an opportunity for a real boom economy in Haiti.” Likewise, after 9/11, Paul Krugman wrote in the NYT that:

The terror attack … could even do some economic good … Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings … rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.

Destroying wealth to create wealth? Sarah Palin wouldn't make such a dumb statement. Palin's comments on the tax deal follow very closely to the points that I have raised in my piece at Fox News.

In a rare interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin on Friday criticized the $858 billion tax cut bill that passed through Congress early this morning, calling the legislation "a lousy deal" that "creates a temporary economy with even more uncertainty for businesses and it does increase taxes."

"I think it's a lousy deal and we can do better for the American people," Palin told GMA's Robin Roberts, in an interview in her Alaska home.

The "new Congress is seated the first week of January," Palin continued. "It is better to wait until they are seated and get a good deal for the American public than to accept what I think is a lousy deal, because it creates a temporary economy with even more uncertainty for businesses and it does increase taxes."

Palin also said she was "grateful" to President Obama, who brokered the tax deal with Republican leadership, for compromising on his position that tax cuts for America's highest earners should not be extended.

"This is one case where I'm really thankful that the president flip flopped," she said. "I would say that it is a flip flop in his position on taxes because he was so adamant about not allowing the tax cut extension to take place for job creators, and then all of a sudden one day he was fine with it." . . .

WBAL's Ron Smith explains why he thinks that Pelosi is so upset with Robert Gibbs' remarks about Republicans possibly winning the House

From the Baltimore Sun:

One can certainly understand why Speaker Pelosi is agitated. Few people willingly cede power, and she certainly wants to cling to hers, the perks of which include luxury air travel to and from her California home, not to mention her new San Francisco office (for which we taxpayers are footing a more than $18,000-per-month rent), nicer digs in the Capitol and the ability to kick butt and take names any time she chooses. . . .

Is this serious?: Pelosi raising money to fend off investigations when Republicans take over the majority next year

This is pretty amazing. I am not sure that I still believe it, but it certainly shows a lack of confidence in the Dems keeping the House this year.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is asking supporters for contributions to help prevent the "subpoenas and investigations" that would result from a GOP majority.

In a fundraising letter for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Pelosi says if Republicans take back the House, they'll initiate "endless investigations against President Obama" and "bring back the days of Ken Starr and the politics of personal destruction."

"Remember a Republican-controlled Congress that devoted more time to subpoenas and investigations than to solving our country's problems?" Pelosi asks. "There is far too much at stake for our country now to allow it to happen again." . . .

Pelosi spending $18.736 in rent per month on new Congressional District office

From Fox News:

The House Speaker's district office in the new federal building in San Francisco costs a whopping $18,736 a month -- the highest rental paid by any member of the House -- or, more precisely, the highest rental paid by taxpayers on behalf of a member of the House. The rental price was reported by Roll Call on Monday.

The Democratic congresswoman moved last fall from her old office in the Burton Federal Building, which she occupied for 20 years, to a "greener" space in the city's new federal building -- a move and a high price that her spokesman, Drew Hammill, says was amply justified.

Hammill cited the new building's increased security measures and the new office's larger size as reasons for the move -- and the expense. "The new office space is 3,075 square feet, nearly a third larger than the old space, which was of inadequate size," he told FoxNews.com.

"As speaker, the security needs are different," he said. "The new San Francisco Federal Building offers enhanced security features, which were a major factor in the decision to move offices." . . .

Call reported Monday that Pelosi's new office space costs almost double that of the next-highest rental office held by a House member. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., reportedly pays just under $10,600 a month for his office in New York's Soho neighborhood.

The newspaper, which cites a database produced by the Sunlight Foundation, also reports that other lawmakers, like Democratic Reps. Stephen Lynch of Boston and Diane Watson of Los Angeles, pay exorbitant rental fees for their offices -- $9,000 to $10,000 a month. . . .

Pelosi tells Obama administration to stop criticizing Washington

As hard as it is to believe, the Obama administration thinks that they can campaign against Washington. After all, what could they have to do with what is happening in Washington these days? But apparently some Democrats are worried that since they control everything in town they could get some of the blame.

President Barack Obama’s Washington-bashing could boomerang on his own party in Congress if he’s not careful, House Democratic leaders warned White House senior adviser David Axelrod in a closed-door meeting Thursday.

The fear - raised by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, campaign chief Chris Van Hollen and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn - is that Democrats have more to lose if anti-Washington sentiment is not directed at one party or the other.

“If the president is going to go out and talk about how Washington’s broken, he’s got to include a strong contrast with congressional Republicans or else we’re going to get blamed for it,” one meeting participant said later.

But Axelrod gave no indication that he plans to alter the president’s course, sources told POLITICO. White House aides did not reply to requests for comment.. . . .

Pelosi explains why health care takeover is so important

From the Rachel Maddow Show last night:

"Think of an economy where people could be an artist, a photographer, a writer without having to worry about keeping their day job in order to keep their insurance."

We are supposed to do this damage to the health care system so that people can quit their jobs and get free health care? Maddow frames this as a pro-freedom vote.

Remember how the media was bogged down for a month about what Dennis Hastert knew about Mark Foley?

For a month it seemed as if there was nothing but media stories about Foley and the stupid emails that he sent former interns. It turns out that then House Speaker Dennis Hastert didn't really know that much and certainly hadn't seen the emails. Will there now be a media feeding frenzy about what Nancy Pelosi knew? Apparently Massa is accused of making advances to at least one intern as well as multiple staff members.

But a Pelosi aide told POLITICO on Wednesday evening that Massa’s chief of staff, Joe Racalto, informed a member of Pelosi’s “member services” operation in October that Massa was living with several aides, had hired too many staff members and used foul language around his staff.

Racalto also raised concerns about “the way Massa ran his office” and informed Pelosi’s member-services staffer that he had asked Massa to move out of the group house on Capitol Hill, the Pelosi aide said.

Democratic insiders say Pelosi’s office took no action after Racalto expressed his concerns about his then-boss in October.

Hoyer’s aides say he was informed of sexual-harassment allegations against Massa by Ron Hikel, another Massa aide, Feb. 8 and gave the New York Democrat’s office an ultimatum: Take the charges to the ethics committee within 48 hours, or Hoyer would. . . .

Now comes this information from CBS that indicates that Massa may have had a long reputation for this activity. For his time in Congress, they write:

Reports surfaced earlier in the day that Massa had been under investigation for allegedly groping multiple male staffers and behaving inappropriately with interns. . . .

Politicians on Trent Lott and Harry Reid

Former Mississippi GOP Senator Trent Lott. Mr. Lott found himself in trouble after praising fellow Republican Senator Strom Thurmond (once a segregationist) at the late South Carolinian's 100th birthday.

"I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either."

Everyone knew that Trent Lott was just trying to be nice to an old man on his 100th birthday. There was no mention of any particular part of Thurmond's platform that he supported, and I assume that if someone had asked Trent Lott right at that moment if that meant that he had supported segregation, Trent Lott would have recoiled in horror. Was it a smart thing for him to say? Hardly. But did he same that he supported segregation? No. So how did the Democrats respond to Trent Lott's apology? Note that it took over a year for Reid to make his apology.

Obama

“It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do,” said Obama.

He said: “The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.”

Nancy Pelosi, December 10, 2002 (thanks to Kerry Picket for point to this):

"He can apologize all he wants. It doesn't remove the sentiment that escaped his mouth that day."

The media firestorm was incredibly intense. Virtually no one defended Trent Lott. At the very least, those who demanded that Trent Lott be demoted should be asked by the media why they are not holding Harry Reid to the same standard.

Al Sharpton NOW AND THEN

In 2002, Sharpton had this to say about Trent Lott:

Well, I think that the fact is that he didn't just make an off-color remark. People are trying to act like he just said something out of line. To say that he wished the country had elected a segregationist ticket ... and then sit at the head of the Republican Party -- the majority party in the Senate that will review U.S. attorneys being confirmed -- is a frightening occurrence for those of us that had parents that in 1948 couldn't even vote and had to sit in the back of the bus.

This is not just an off-color remark. We're talking about somebody in power ... he can't say he didn't say it. You have the tape that shows that he said it. You also have the tape that shows that he said it before. You can go to any local penitentiary, and any crook will say, "I didn't mean it, I'm sorry." But you still pay for what you do.

Mr. Lott said it, and he said it again. He ought to pay for what he said. He should step aside. No one is saying that if the people of Mississippi want to elect him to the Senate that they don't have the right to do that. But to be the head of the party in the Senate, given the sensitivity of that position, if the Republican Party wants to sincerely reach out to people as they claim they have, and as you almost nightly claim they want to, they certainly have an opportunity here by saying, for the interest of the country and the party, Mr. Lott should step aside since he either has very segregationist views or he at least has a repeated problem of being misunderstood when he endorses segregationists.

Now for Reid this is what Sharpton has to say:

I have learned of certain unfortunate comments made by Senator Reid regarding President Barack Obama and have spoken with Senator Reid about those comments. While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing healthcare or creating jobs for its people. Nor should they detract from the unquestionable leadership role Senator Reid has played on these issues or in the area of civil rights. Senator Reid's door has always been open on hearing from the civil rights community on these issues and I look forward to continue to work with Senator Reid wherever possible to improve the lives of Americans everywhere.

After seeing this, I do think that we need some type of intelligence test for voters

These women don't even know who the Speaker of the House is let alone what her views are.

Ruckus over Pelosi and Hoyer's "un-American" claim

Why are Democrats Demonizing Insurance and Drug Industries when they are helping the Democrats out on Health Care?

Here is the help from the Drug industry. I had been told by people in the drug industry that they had hired a lot of Clinton people and that they were running a lot of the show.

The nation's drugmakers stand ready to spend $150 million to help President Barack Obama overhaul health care this fall, according to numerous officials, a staggering sum that could dwarf attempts to derail Obama's top domestic priority.

The White House and allies in Congress are well aware of the effort by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a somewhat surprising political alliance, given the drug industry's recent history of siding with Republicans and the Democrats' disdain for special interests.

The campaign, now in its early stages, includes television advertising under PhRMA's own name and commercials aired in conjunction with the liberal group, Families USA. . . . .

"Harry And Louise" Now Back Health Care Overhaul

Harry and Louise, the couple who appeared in the ad that helped sink President Clinton's heath care ambitions, are back with a new ad — supporting President Obama's industry overhaul. The actors joined several Democratic senators on Capitol Hill Thursday to mark the passage of a health bill from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. . . . .

So here is another story from NPR.

In search of a new edge to their health care efforts, President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have turned their guns on the insurance industry. They're counting on Americans' distrust of insurance companies to shore up wavering support for the President's health care agenda. The insurance industry says its impressive profits do not mean it is adding substantially to the cost of health care.

Or see this:

"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening.

Pelosi's evidence of opposition to health care plan "carrying Swastikas"

Yesterday I pointed to Nancy Pelosi's claim that those protesting health care plan of "carrying Swastikas and symbols like that." Well, I contacted Pelosi's office about their evidence of these people "carrying Swastikas." Surely the implication is that those opposing the Democrats health care plan are Nazis. Nadeam Elshami, a spokesperson for Pelosi's congressional office, told me on Thursday that they had one picture of someone carrying a sign. See this:

Note this is not a pro-Swastika sign. It is a ban Swastika sign. I emailed Mr. Elshami about this inconsistency, but I received no further response. I wouldn't have used this sign myself and, while I understand people's fear about what is happening to health care, I think that such a sign is a mistake.

Obviously, Pelosi's claim makes it sound as if the signs are common -- a picture of one sign doesn't make it common. More importantly, if Pelosi had said that people were ""carrying anti-Swastika signs," what would have been the response to that?

Pelosi accuses those protesting health care plan of "carrying Swastikas and symbols like that"

Pelosi is accusing people of not genuinely being upset about the government takeover of health care. That they are merely being put up by others to protest. She is also saying that they are "carrying Swastikas and symbols like that."



Apparently, Pelosi isn't the only person of claiming the protests involve AstroTurfing. The WSJ:

Briefing reporters Tuesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs suggested that the opposition is being organized by a small group seeking to create "manufactured anger."

"I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the AstroTurf nature of so-called grass-roots lobbying," Mr. Gibbs said.

Dems in Congress order jets for their own travel

So where is all the outrage about Car makers traveling by private jet to DC? This was not classified as an earmark because it simply was placed in as an expansion of an existing federal government program. As a result, the name of the person who asked for the additional money will not be made public. From Roll Call magazine:

Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.

But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.

But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials.

Because the Appropriations Committee viewed the additional aircraft as an expansion of an existing Defense Department program, it did not treat the money for two more planes as an earmark, and the legislation does not disclose which Member had requested the additional money. . . . .

UPDATE: John Fund has this at the WSJ's Political Diary.

How to Travel Like a CEO on a Government Salary

The country is in tough economic straits, but you wouldn't know it by how much Congress is spending on itself. The budget for the legislative branch is up over 10% this year, leading former Government Accountability Office chief David Walker to decry "just how much they are not setting an example for the rest of the government."

The spending spree is so big that the House Appropriations Committee has just authorized $195 million for the Pentagon to buy three Gulfstream jets. All three planes will be used to ferry government officials and members of Congress around the country on "official business." The jets are well appointed and feature what Gulfstream calls an "impeccably equipped cabin" with "best-in-class comforts."

"This just makes no sense. Talk about the wrong message at the wrong time," Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri told reporters after vowing to block the funding in the Senate. She noted the Air Force itself had only requested funding for one additional plane, but the House is tripling the size of the order.

You'd think the House leadership would have thought twice about such poor symbolism. Just after the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2007, it was learned that new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had asked the Pentagon to provide her with a new jet that could fly her back to San Francisco without refueling. House speakers have had access to government planes ever since post-9/11 security concerns prompted a change in procedures.

No one begrudges Ms. Pelosi access to a government jet from time to time. But the watchdog group Judicial Watch documented last March just how difficult it's been for the Pentagon to accommodate Speaker Pelosi's demanding schedules. Judicial Watch obtained internal Pentagon correspondence that expressed frustration with the Speaker's office. One Defense Department official wrote in response to the numerous requests from her office for transportation, "Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend? . . .[T]here's no need to block every weekend 'just in case' . . ." The email also notes that Pelosi's office had, "a history of canceling many of their past requests."

The emails also show that intermediaries for Speaker Pelosi frequently expressed anger when they were told transportation demands couldn't be met. "It is my understanding there are no (Gulfstream) 5's available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable . . . The speaker will want to know where the planes are," wrote Kay King, Director of the House Office of Interparliamentary Affairs. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, Ms. King wrote, "This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset [s]peaker."

Apparently, such problems may be resolved if the House is able to order up its new planes and assign them to the Pentagon's air pool. With the arrival of the new jets perhaps Speaker Pelosi's office will have less reason to complain in the future.

House Democrats Health Care Talking Points Cheat Sheet

Note just the first point about increases in health care costs. 1) The Democratic controlled CBO says that their proposed changes will increase costs even more than they are already likely to increase. 2) The government regulations are already responsible for much of the increase in insurance costs. 3) The way that the Dems bill will be paid by reducing reimbursements to doctors and hospitals for Medicaid and Medicare will only increase private insurance costs even more.
Second point: Look at the surveys that show Americans are overwhelmingly happy with their insurance programs.
Third point: Does anyone think that the government can do things at a lower cost than private companies? Instead of people paying premiums they will pay taxes. The costs won't go away.

Obtained from Talkingpointsmemo.com.

Nancy Pelosi understands economics?

This is surely comforting. The WSJ's Political Diary has this discussion by John Fund.

Blue Dogs who are dragged into Speaker Pelosi's office should be aware of just how she is selling the health care bill. Yesterday, she told supporters it represented "real change," because it meant "a cap on your [health care] costs, but no cap on your benefit."

Of course, Nancy Pelosi is the same person who believes that the health care and energy legislation are both stimulus packages.

“I do think the health care bill is a stimulus package. I do believe the energy bill was, (with the) creation of new green jobs, a jump start,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”