February 28, 2010

Two-Faced Weasel Alert: Her Speakerness Finds She Shares Some of the Views of Tea Partiers

Monique Chartier

... after accusing them of carrying swastikas, implying that they incite violence and calling them astroturf.

[Thanks to NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard for sitting through the interview so as to bring this to light.]

[House Speaker Nancy] PELOSI ... But, you know, we share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C., as -- it just has to stop. And that's why I've fought the special interest, whether it's on energy, whether it's on health insurance, whether it's on pharmaceuticals and the rest.

[ABC's Elizabeth] VARGAS: So, common ground with many people in the Tea Party movement.

PELOSI: Well, no, there are some. There are some because they, again, some of it is orchestrated from the Republican headquarters. Some of it is hijacking the good intentions of lots of people who share some of our concerns that we have about the role of special interests and many Tea Partiers, not that I speak for them, share the view, whether it's -- and Democrats, Republicans and Independents share the view that the recent Supreme Court decision, which greatly empowers the special interests, is something that they oppose.

That last item is sheer projection. How does she know what most Tea Party members think of that recent Supreme Court decision about campaign financing?

She fails to retract her comments about swastikas and violence, she continues to insult the Tea Party by claiming that it is orchestrated by the GOP (as as a Republican and on behalf of the RNC, I can say with confidence: we wish) yet simultaneously tries to glom on to this movement, presumably because of its popularity and the political advantages that she herself perceives would accrue to her reelection campaign.

I need a shower.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

She also said that the Obamacare bill can be bipartisan even if every Republican votes against it.

This is Newspeak, pure, Orwellian Newspeak.

Posted by: BobN at February 28, 2010 5:59 PM

If Tea Partiers walk it like they talk it (and I don't doubt the sincerity of the more libertarian ones), they would be just as alarmed at the court decision as any liberal. These folks don't like corporatism uber alles any more than I do.
Was talking to a guy the other night who was attracted to the movement as a libertarian and was active in its early days, but feels like he's been crowded out of it by conservatives and corporatists. It serves as a reminder that for every current Tea Partier who's been attracted by the hysteria, another has or is contemplating walking away.
What happens when more Tea Partiers realize they're being exploited by corporations and social conservatives?
And I say this as no apologist for Pelosi - she sold me out shortly after ascending to the cair by standing silently by as Bush plunged us deeper into the quagmire.

Posted by: rhody at February 28, 2010 6:29 PM

I mostly agree with you here, Rhody, and as "one of the more libertarian ones" I am flattered, but I have a slightly different take on it.

I've never been to a tea party event, but I support the movement. As I understand it, anybody can just show up to these events and it is meant to encompass anyone who is for smaller government. Beyond that common concern, what people may happen to also believe is irrelevant. There are a lot of people who are concerned more with the message than the people involved. I don't see why anyone should be excluded, or why we should have to withdraw support just because some of the people involved may have ulterior motives. As long as they are still moving us in the right direction, they're welcome in my book.

Posted by: Dan at February 28, 2010 9:18 PM

No, Rhody. You are wrong because we understand that corporations are merely groups of citizens using their freedoms of assembly and speech to pool their resources and act as a group.

You liberals define all of society as an assortment of groups, and label everyone by the groups you define. Conservatives understand that each person is a free individual who cannot be labeled in such a way.

Conservatives also have faith in the intelligence of people to see through paid advertising and other propaganda and weigh issues and politicians on their merits. Apparently libs do not, and want to "protect" the people from manipulation by evil corporations. But who will protect the people from manipulation by evil politicians?

The only reason that members of the voting public can be swayed by advertising is that they have received very poor educations from the liberal teachers who indoctrinated them into dependence and failed to develop their capacities of perception and reasoning.

Posted by: BobN at March 1, 2010 8:34 AM

Bob, maybe the reason there are so many "liberal" teachers is that conservatives would rather make more money by going into the corporate world (and not get slammed on radio every day, either) .
You're already starting to see this split in the Tea Party world. Plenty of them were disillusioned by the recent convention (they didn't get involved in the movement to shove $100K into Sarah Palin's pocket). And look at the way the corporate elements turned on Scott Brown a month after laying palms at his feet - at least it took a little longer for the fanboys and girls to turn against him than the throngs that cheered Christ.
And watch out for the Arizona Senate race - what do the Tea Partiers backing that troglodyte Hayworth do when Palin comes to campaign for McCain?

Posted by: rhody at March 1, 2010 12:25 PM

Rhody, one would have to believe and agree with you merely to get through that post without being disgusted. Why do you persist in substituting name-calling for analysis?

Posted by: BobN at March 1, 2010 2:54 PM

BobN-Rhody is akin to the disgusting "Klaus"on kmareka.
Experts at talking down and not much else.
"Klaus"tried to tell me Peter Singer,of Princeton,who sits on Obama's health advisory panel,is merely a "philosopher"as opposed to a real evil man like Limbaugh.Well,it turns out Mr.Singer advocates killing "defective"infants post-birth,because they are not "human" right away.
I don't think Singer is a human at all.
C'mon Rhody- start preaching to me how I'm just a hateful fascist.
This is where we are going in the life/choice debate.Nice.
rhody-you and your "progressive" friends are going to get a real nasty surprise pretty soon.
The Tea Party people can do real well without your"analysis".What,pray tell,is your area of expertise or knowledge?Besides being a smartass weasel.

Posted by: joe bernstein at March 1, 2010 3:06 PM

Anybody in RI who dismisses the local tea party movement as being co-opted by social conservatives or corporations shows clearly that they know nothing about the mission or actvities of the people involved. The "tea party convention" in Nashville??? 600 people out of 15 millio tea partiers across the country attended that meeting. We had 400 at our last meeting at the O Club here in RI. Come on. You're not that out of touch with local politics, are you Rhody? It's been stated time and time again that the RI Tea Party stands for fiscal responsibility, accountability, and Constitutional principles. Not that hard to remember.

Posted by: MadMom at March 1, 2010 7:13 PM

There goes Bernstein with the name-calling and threats again. Is this surprise he speaks of going to be stuffed in my and my friends' glove compartments?

Posted by: rhody at March 2, 2010 3:51 PM

You lying turd.
The surprise I am referring to is called a midterm election.
Unlike you,I'm not a miserable sneak making cracks from behind a pseudonym.

Posted by: joe bernstein at March 2, 2010 5:21 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.