Tammy Bruce: Fox This Morning on the Dems and War Funding

Fox This Morning on the Dems and War Funding

On my way to Fox for a segment about the Dem comments on the Sunday morning show about their rhetoric regarding whether or not they will fund extra troops for Iraq. I'll be on at about 7:20am PT (10:20am ET).

Hope you can tune in.

UPDATE:

Understandably, the segment was bumped due to the gas smell wafting over midtown Manhattan. I could have argued, however, if they did do our segment on Pelosi, the subject matter wouldn't have been entirely different.

Why am I not fond of the Most Excellent Grandmother Who Does Everything for Kids and Being in Congress is Really Just a Hobby for Granny? Because she has a voting record that exposes her hypocrisy on issues of war and safety for this nation.

While she voted in support of Bill Clinton's adventure in bombing the bejesus out of the former Yugoslavia (to save Muslims, mind you) she voted against the war in Iraq in 2002. Here's a small sample of her positions:

# Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
# Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
# Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
# Wage war on Terrorism, not on fellow Americans. (Sep 2001)
# Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

Clearly, this is not a woman who votes based on what's right. She votes based on what Republicans do not want. Taking that cynical stance means Pelosi is a person who does not vote based on what's right for this country, but instead on what her party wants, which translates to what's best for her own power. Contrast that with Joe Lieberman's principled stands. But don't you dare forget--she's just a kindly Granny who wants to do what's best for kids.

To see key votes made by Pelosi, as well as daily details on her latest votes, visit the WaPo's Votes Database.

Some interesting favorability poll news also emerged a couple of days ago. The news covered the Rasmussen Favorability poll like this:

Pelosi's new image as Italian Catholic mom -- more than a 'San Francisco liberal'

Quite a makeover for newly sworn House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as her national image morphed from leader of the San Francisco liberal elite to Italian Catholic mom from Baltimore...

"A lot of people don't know much about her, so this is a chance to fill in her profile and biography so she doesn't just become the San Francisco liberal,'' said San Francisco consultant Chris Lehane, a veteran of the Clinton-Gore White House. "This is the one time when the press will be focusing on it.''

And it may be working. According to the results of a Rasmussen Reports national phone survey of 800 likely voters, released Friday, Pelosi's approval rating has jumped to 43 percent -- up 19 points from November.

As we would expect, this is an example from the SF Chron of putting the most positive spin on not great news. Moving up 19 points when you've been in the gutter means you're now just sloshing around on the curb. But forget about what Republicans think of Pelosi (which is understandable); the real story is what the Rasmussen poll reveals about whatwhat Democrats are thinking: A full 34 percent of Democrats don't like Pelosi or aren't sure what to think. This is not good for a high-profile Democrat Party leader who's been in office for 15 years.

Keep this in mind as you watch her votes and behavior. If she parrots the Cindy Sheehan-George Soros party line, this woman's political future, like Ned Lamont's, will be over sooner than later.

Posted by Tammy · January 8, 2007 06:33 AM · Permalink
Politics | Tammy Notes | Television

Comments

The street where she grew up in the Little Italy section of Baltimore was named in her honor last week. She spoke about how nice it was to visit her old home. I made sure that I had a shovel out and my feet off the floor when I heard her little speech. ick.

Posted by: ltlme at January 8, 2007 03:09 PM

Our new national Nanny! Oh well, "we the people" elected her and now we get what we asked for! If copies of People Mag, Newsweek and Time continue to fly off store shelves, there are alot of people out there buying this granny routine...sigh...

Posted by: SLABBOTT at January 8, 2007 03:59 PM

The New York Gas Leak story did not warrant wall to wall coverage for 5 hours on the cable news networks. It looked like a local story to me. The news bureaus covered it so feverishly because they largely broadcast from New York City. I know there were fears of terrorism, but if this had happened in Dayton, Houston, or even Chicago it would not have gotten half the coverage, especially on a Monday when there are so many world events to discuss that don't get much attention on weekends.

Do we now have to wait yet another week to see Tammy's haircut?

Posted by: ashleymatt at January 8, 2007 07:39 PM

A full 34% of Democrats, you say? Well, this is understandable. A relatively new person in a position of power? I wouldn't be fully sure, either, until I'd seen results.

The Democrats are a party divided in any case
(certainly were with Lieberman. That traitor. He was a Republican in Democrat clothing in any case).

"Pelosi watch" is just another attempt at scapegoating your political adversary. Especially when your own party isn't doing so well. The democrats where they are to keep checks and balances where they need to be is important. Certainly it needs to be balanced, otherwise it breeds corruption. And I'd say the same were the Democrats in government. But especially so, with a warmongering, money-hungry chickenhawk "preznit" like America has now.

Besides which, look at Bush's ratings. Even republican voters can't fully support him by that rationale. He's dangerous to the world at large, going by his results. He's dangerous to his political party, going by polling and by what drives the typical republican, that being the economy.

If you support republican based on economy, fine, whatever. Everyone has their own motives/reasons behind voting. But if you do, try to elect someone more in tune with your views! Even other Republicans have said this. He's gone far away from anything resembling an attempt at fixing the economy.

Also, elect one who won't destroy the world in attempt to bring a better economy while pretending it's in your best interests. Saddam's dead? Great! No-one misses him. But why didn't Slobbodan Mislosevic die by execution, instead of a heart condition in prison? He was a warmongerer also, and yet they just let him stay in jail. But Saddam? Rush to execution. And thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, dead and injured. WHY? Corruption, my friends, corruption.
Because Saddam was "thuh man who trahd tew kill muh daddah".

Finally, as I leave, remember that it was REAGAN who kept Saddam where he was(Iran contra). Also, remember that afterwards, it was in Bush sr.'s best interests for Saddam to invade Kuwait, as Kuwait was going to flood the market with cheap oil. Then it was Bush sr. who RENEGED on Saddam.

And now, that Bush jr. is capping off his father's treachery, and America - and the rest of the world - is sick of it, you wish to keep a watch on someone who wants to make sure that your embarassment of a "preznit" is actually doing their job and not just following the agenda of the oil and nuclear industries? WOW.

Posted by: ThousandDemons at January 9, 2007 02:05 AM

OK, "Thou Sand Demons", you can put the 'talking points' pamphlet down now. Thank goodness I had a shovel nearby while I read that. I love level-headed discussions - especially the ones littered with playground ephitets.

Posted by: PeteRFNY at January 10, 2007 07:26 AM

By Category

By Month

Fox This Morning on the Dems and War Funding

Comments

Post a comment