Nancy’s Dilemma

Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and since that’s the only branch of government held by the Democrats at the moment, Nancy is the defacto leader of the party.

And she’s in big trouble.

Her constituency is split right down the middle — and her Party members are also split. One side, the Progressives, have AOC, Omar, and Talib, and also have the platform, namely Medicare for All, Free College Tuition, $15 Minimum Wage, and a bunch of other stupid shit like “Impeach Now”. These people have Trump Derangement Syndrome, have little if any respect for the Constitution — but wield power in great disproportion to their constituency size.

The other side, the establishment side, don’t have much of a platform, they just personally attack anyone that challenges what I call the donor agenda; keep the regime change wars going, keep the debt cycle going, keep the environment damaging agenda going, keep Dems in office any way possible including no support for Progressives, even if it means a Republican wins. This group, led by Hillary supporters and Hillary herself, loath Tulsi Gabbard because she has exposed them for what they are — but from within the Party, which makes all the difference in the world. When Joy Reid says Tulsi Gabbard sounds like a Kremlin agent, on MSNBC, while Brian Williams chortles in agreement, they look like complete fools and tools — even to TDS suffering partisans, which means the hysteria may finally be wearing off.

Here’s how we’ll know, when Democratic Party candidates stand up and demand accountability, demand change from rules like, “No primary challenges or we ostracize you, de-platform you and blackball you from DNC and DCCC contracts.” This — by the way — is not an editorial statement or exaggeration for this column, it is actual DNC and DCCC policy.

So, Nancy cannot make the old guard, corrupt, clinging-to-power establishment wing happy, because they need wins (bills passed) to take home and campaign on, and Nancy’s House hasn’t passed any bipartisan legislation whatsoever — they haven’t passed anything.

And she cannot make the new-guard, energetic, press-monopolizing Progressives happy either because she cannot call a vote on — and push Impeachment toward the Senate — where she knows she’ll get toasted like a marshmallow — by the Senate Trial — right during the all-important lead up to the Democratic primaries.

She’s caught like a mouse in a trap. And the guy who set out the cheese?

President Donald J. Trump.

About karlspain

20 year Newspaperman. Lifelong Inventor. Wrote 2 books so far, working on more. The Revelation, 1st book, about your brain & the universe, and math. Hooked together! God I trust, America I love, 2nd book, is the biography of Aris Mardirossian, a great man. Also owned a software company, an IT integration company, a gas station and a fuzzy logic software title along the way.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Nancy’s Dilemma

  1. agelessmd says:

    New York Times memory-holes its own report that Ukraine interfered in 2016 election
    by Eddie Scarry
    | November 23, 2019 04:21 PM Washington Examiner

    Now that the public is finally getting around to acknowledging that Ukraine’s government did insert itself in the 2016 election for the purpose of hurting President Trump’s campaign, the national media are pretending that it didn’t happen.

    In the case of the New York Times, they’re pretending that they themselves weren’t the ones to initially report on it.

    A Times report on Friday said that the “charges” over Ukraine’s election meddling originated with — where else? Russia.

    The story said that “American intelligence officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a years long campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow’s own hacking of the 2016 election.”

    Interesting. Did that “yearslong campaign” extend back to August 2016, when the Times broke the story that an entire Ukrainian government agency was investigating Paul Manafort, who at the time was serving as Trump’s campaign chairman?

    Back then, the paper reported that Ukraine’s “newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau,” which worked in conjunction with America’s FBI, was in possession of a mysterious, handwritten diary that showed Manafort was receiving millions of dollars in payments from one of the country’s pro-Russian politicians. “Investigators assert,” the Times reported, “that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.”

    If that report was part of a larger disinformation campaign by Russia, I’d like to know when the Times plans on issuing a retraction.

    Inside the Magazine: November 19

    Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
    We’re supposed to believe that Ukraine’s government, completely by coincidence, happened upon this little notebook — literally found in the ashes of a burned-down building — that exposed Manafort as a money launderer. We’re supposed to believe that this was a matter of fate, not a form of retaliation against Trump, who had been saying positive things about Russia.

    Yeah, I don’t believe any of that.

    This was Ukraine’s most consequential government agency investigating the top official in a major candidate’s presidential campaign. The Times report on Friday, however, dismissed Ukraine’s documented and consequential interference as “scattershot.”

    Welcome to 1984.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s