The Liberal Case Against Pelosi

So I’m cruising the net yesterday and what to my wandering mouse clicks should appear, but a rather entertaining bit of leftist fratricide. Over at Salon.com, a fringe sleaze site, between articles comparing Glenn Beck to a Nazi, explaining that Bill Clinton was right to abuse FBI files, and shriekings that Disney “princess” movies “turn little girls into bedazzled pod people” was a fun little article called “The liberal case against Dennis Kucinich.” Let’s discuss, and let’s see if the same case can be made against San Fran Nan the Pelosi.

Now before you get all excited that you may get some real analysis here, let me warn you right up front that like all diatribes written by leftists, this isn’t really much of a test. It’s more of a “find some fact that supports a prejudice” than it is anything you could call an “argument,” but it’s fun nevertheless.

The Accused: Dennis “Barking Mad” Kucinich

Occupation: Hero of the Left, Congressional Mascot

The Question: Despite spending seven terms in Congress, what has Dennis Kucinich ever done for the cause of progressivism? Like seriously. . . and stuff.

The Normal Liberal Answer: He has such good intentions that he’s almost pure goodness and above reproach. He’s like finding an extra pound of tofu under your commune’s Prius. He’s a sunny day without princesses, where everyone has free health care and peace and happiness reigns and those who disagree with you are murdered in their sleep by angry mobs. :-)

This Liberal’s Answer: Nothing, that’s what he’s done.

The Proof: A quick search of the Congressional website reveals that since he’s been in Congress, from January 7, 1997 to the present, Kooky Kucinich has sponsored a total of 97 bills. Of those, only 4. . . yes, FOUR, made it out of committee and only 3 were enacted.

Conclusion: He’s an ineffective embarrassment to progressives and should be put to death. . . or someone should run against him, which ever comes first. No further proof or argument needed.


Wow! So that was the liberal case against Kucinich. Well, that got me thinking. . . a very non-liberal thing to do. What if we applied the same test to others?

What? Yes. Yes, I know that. I know that liberal arguments aren't meant for general purposes, that they should never be applied to people we like. . . just those we've already judged guilty. But dammit, I feel frisky. Let's do this thing!

I can think of no better target for this new test than that most progressive of progressives, the botox queen herself. Let’s see how she fares under the Kucinich Standard:

Nancy Pelosi: Pelosi sponsored 86 bills since 1987, making her much lazier than Kucinich (she’s running about four per year, while he’s running about nine per year). Of those, only 15 made it out of committee and only 6 made it into law -- about one every four years. That’s right, every four years one of Nan’s bills creeps into the legal books.

That’s way worse than Kucinich’s one every three years!

That’s also much, much worse than John McCain who got 33 bills enacted in the same time, or about 1.4 per year. Or Charlie Rangel who got 30 in the same time. Heck, Hillary Clinton got 11 bills enacted in seven years, that’s like 1.6 bills a year!

Thus, there can be only one verdict. . . Guilty, and ugly. No princess here. Off with her botoxic head!


Oh, and for those of you wondering about the princess-hate, apparently today’s “thinking” feminist is upset (1) that Hollywood thinks that “boy stories are for everyone, but girl stories ‘alienate half the potential audience’” -- ah yep, truth hurts, and (2) that you “females” allow yourselves to be “conned . . . into spending $3.7 billion on princess-branded crap last year.” For shame ladies, for shame. You should know that princess crap is not as good as nondenominational Miracle Grow.