Hire Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi is taking much of the blame for Democrats’ losses in the House in this month’s elections. People say she tried to do too much, rammed through a health care bill no one wanted, and she got what she deserved by losing her position as speaker.

Despite Republicans’ Fire Pelosi Bus Tour, I highly doubt that voters across the country were specifically targeting Pelosi when they went to the polls. I would be surprised if the average person on the street could tell you who she is. A poll taken in 2007 showed only 49% of people could identify her, and that was after she became speaker. Considering many people can’t name the vice president, that number probably hasn’t changed much.

It’s mostly a simple fact of math that removed Pelosi from power. Every single one of the 435 seats in the House was on the ballot. That’s a lot of races where anything can happen. Only a third of the Senate seats were up for grabs.

Pelosi’s hometown paper, the San Francisco Chronicle, wrote about her re-election:

A look at election results in the city showed her with the highest support, percentage-wise, of any candidate running for state or federal office. Pelosi, who is vying to remain the House Minority Leader in the 112th Congress, claimed 79.97 percent support in her re-election bid.

So despite what Republicans say about her, Pelosi’s constituents clearly have nothing to complain about. She was re-elected with nearly 80 percent of the vote. Some candidates are lucky to win with 40 percent.

Pelosi’s real problem isn’t that she was bad at her job. It’s that she was too good at it. The most recent estimate is that the Senate is sitting on more than 400 bills passed by the House. According to Bloomberg:

House Democrats passed legislation overhauling the nation’s health-care system in March without a Republican vote. They also approved the most sweeping overhaul of financial rules since the Great Depression; an $862 billion economic-stimulus package; billions of dollars in assistance to automakers; and legislation that would cap carbon emissions and generate funds for renewable energy development.

Pelosi’s decision to run for House minority leader has been greeted with much derision from Republicans. They have hung a sign outside their offices that now reads “Hire Pelosi,” because they are all too happy to blame her for the country’s woes and hold her up as an example of everything that’s wrong with Washington.

I really don’t understand the vitriol directed at Pelosi. People hate her, and as far as I can tell it’s because she’s a woman in a position of incredible power who does her job damn well.

The Indianapolis Star has gone so far as to let readers submit captions for a cartoon of Pelosi looking in a mirror. She was supposed to be “reflecting” on something. I admit I might be reading too much into the cartoon, but it strikes me as a bit sexist that she was depicted with a mirror—an image that was bound to generate comments based on her appearance. To its credit, the paper didn’t pick any comments that related to her appearance as a winner. And the following cartoon in the contest was of John Boehner, the next speaker of the House.

The winning caption reads, “The election results are no reflection of me.” It’s clearly meant to be sarcastic, but I truly believe it. I hope that Pelosi wins her vote on Wednesday, because we could use more of her leadership in these tough times.

Read Full Post »

Is it Ever Gonna be Enough?

In their hit song, “Gold Guns Girls,” the Canadian band Metric repeatedly asks the question, “is it ever gonna be enough?”  For gun advocates, especially those allied with the National Rifle Association (NRA), the answer appears to be a resounding NO. It does not matter how many victims are shot to death on the streets of Chicago, of Washington, of Los Angeles,  of Detroit, or of Wherever USA. Any sort of adopted or proposed limitations on the access to guns is challenged by gun advocates. Is this really what the founding fathers intended? I do not think so.

It is not only street violence with guns that is a problem, but also domestic disputes or accidents. Hardly a day goes by where there is not a story in the news about a child, friend, or family member being accidentally shot by a fellow family member or by a vice-president. Ready access to firearms, especially handguns and assault weapons,   is tearing apart the social fabric of many cities across the United States. Meanwhile handguns in the home, advertised as a deterrence, all too often become a lethal instrument of revenge, then regret and remorse.

Before going too far, let me make it clear that I support the ownership of rifles used for game hunting and for trap or skeet shooting purposes. What I do not support is the rampant availability of assault weapons or broad access to handguns. Exactly how many times do you need to shoot a deer to kill it, when hunting? From what I have seen, one well-aimed shot does the job. That being case, then why in hell is there the need to fire multiple rapid-fire rounds with an assault weapon? Are you going to have to protect yourself from hoards of rampaging deer that are angry over the death of the one you just killed?

Handguns in the home, or in some states allowed just about anywhere outside the home too, may seem like a deterrence. Instead, what they become is an opportunity for deadly violence that would not otherwise exist. Human emotions can at times be very volatile. Mix volatility with guns and a recipe for disaster is created. Add in alcohol or drugs and you really have a dangerous combination.

In his book, Made in America: An Informal History of the English Language in the United States, author Bill Bryson sums up the audacity of the gun lobby just about perfectly. He says:

“Nor, it should be noted, was the much-vaunted right of the people to keep and bear arms ever intended as a carte blanche, semidevine injunction to invest in a private arsenal for purposes of sport and personal defense, as the full sentence makes clear: ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’ The framers had in mind only the necessity of raising a defense at short notice.”

So, back to the original premise of this post. What is enough, 10, 50, 100 guns? I have a co-worker who once boasted about owning 35 guns. Other than collectors of antique guns, what possible need does he have for that many guns? Maybe someday, reasonable restrictions will be adopted that survive the angst of the NRA. Let’s hope it is sooner versus later. Too many Americans have already suffered from an awful, short-sighted, and often self-serving misinterpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

 

Read Full Post »