This, people, is what Leader Nance comes up with when it’s time to justify her stratospheric 9% approval rating. In her speech at Denver, she burbles:

I am very proud of the Democrats in Congress. Working with Majority Leader Harry Reid in the Senate, here are some of our accomplishments:

After years of inaction by Republicans, in our very first act, we passed the 9/11 Commission recommendations to protect the American people. That was just the beginning.

Indeed.

We helped rebuild the Gulf Coast for the survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

How’s that working out?

We put recovery rebates into the hands of more than 130 million families.

And now that bounce is gone, and we’re more fucked than ever, and the really poor didn’t get a dime anyhow.

We passed legislation to keep hard-working American families in their homes and to keep toxic toys out of the hands of our children.

(Not all toxic toys, though. And not all children. As evidenced by the behavior of our famously free press this primary.)

We increased the minimum wage for the first time in ten years.

We improved fuel efficiency for the first time in 32 years.

We passed the largest college aid expansion since the G.I. Bill 64 years ago.

We passed the largest veterans’ health care funding in the 77 year history of the Veterans Administration.

And, we enacted a new G.I. Bill to thank our veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by sending them to college.

Wars which are still cheerfullly going on. Some “thanks.”

All this would be a reasonably competent performance for a Congress that wasn’t facing, oh, a completely out-of-control executive (impeachment off the table, sternly worded letters), the trillion-dollar fiasco of death and looting in Iraq (nada*), global warming (nada), the collapse of the credit system (nada), an “health care” system based on the business model of denial of care (nada). And on and on and on.

And you know how Leader Nance wants us to think of her?

“Think of me as a lioness.”

You know Nance, I’m thinking of a lioness right now. I know what a lioness looks like and I know how a lioness acts. And the lioness I’m thinking of? Her name doesn’t begin with “N.”

But I do have one question:  Read more 

Thanks for that quote, Leader Nance.

And do, please, see Matthew 6:5 and consider it carefully. The historical Jesus, if any, does have strong views on the sale of religion in the public square.

Anyhow, I guess God must have shared a helping of rubber chicken with the rest of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, when they went out to lunch* and decided to give Michigan delegates to Obama who didn’t vote for him. Good to know. And how nice for everyone, that God worked a miracle like that.  Read more 

Via Digby, Matt Stoller gives a telling vignette of Toxic Leader Nance:

I just got back from a fancy NYC fundraiser headlined by Nancy Pelosi for Kirsten Gillibrand to which I snagged a ticket.

I went up to Pelosi after her odd speech to ask her in person about her support for Al Wynn. I said ’I helped organize a fundraiser for Donna Edwards’, and I was about to talk about retroactive immunity and ask her to take this as a sign of frustration, as well as to tell her how proud she makes me as the first female Speaker of the House. But the moment I mentioned Al Wynn, Pelosi’s whole face abruptly changed, her smile melted away, and she got hostile and said in an icy voice ’I know about that.’ She then turned away to talk to someone else.

Classy!

There seem to be two types of frustration, insider frustration and activist frustration. Many of the Democrats in Congress, Pelosi for instance, are insider frustrated. They know something is vaguely wrong somewhere, they know their activists supporters are unhappy, they are still raising lots of money, they know they are in power and feted at fancy breakfasts, and they are unwilling to consider new strategies that actually challenge the constraints they see as permanent.

And when someone else does, they get mean, their face turns cold, and they walk away.

So, if inflicting pain on the Beltway Dems is the only way to get their attention, so fucking what?  Read more 

In comments on Michael Jerkoff’s blog (!), dadw5boys writes:

I have to say I am totally disappointed as a disabled vet that our Military could watch the Israeli Army use armoured vehicles for years and not have at least 2,000 armoured vehicles on hand to would protect our soldiers from IEDs.

This one is easy to explain, dadw5boys:  Read more 

This time, Nancy Pelosi:

“We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow,” Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their “passion,” [that is, their money and time] Pelosi called it “a waste of time” for them to target Democrats. “They are advocates,” [Pelosi] said. “We are leaders.”

Really.

Funny, I would have thought that Pelosi was the Speaker of the House of Representives and a Representative herself.

And the last thing I remember Pelosi “leading” was the stampede of Democrats heading back to the district on vacation after they’d betrayed the Fourth Amendment, at midnight, when Harry Reid managed to pass the Republican bill gutting FISA.

But wait: There’s more!  Read more 

You’re seeing it everywhere, aren’t you? Today, Conservative operative and Designated Bush Fluffer of the Day at House of Hiatt seriously opines:

Despite real military progress, the situation in Iraq remains difficult. Gen. Petraeus is a skilled leader, but we do not know if even he can win.

“Even he…” Not “Even He”? Gerson really does believe that Petraeus is the new Jesus, doesn’t he?

Anyhow, the trained categorization professionals in the Ontological Commmitment Wing of The Mighty Corrente Building have filed this post with The Department of You Can’t Buff a Turd for several very good reasons:  Read more 

Yet another example from Pravda on the Potomac:

Clement will serve as acting attorney general until a new leader is confirmed by the Senate.

Sloppy authoritarian-enabling writing and thinking.

Why not just write:  Read more 

I’ve noticed this little meme creeping in all over everything, like kudzu. Even a not-lazy journalist like Sudarsan Raghavan succumbs:

… Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military leader…

Well, no. Petraeus is the top commander in Iraq. Why not be precise, and give him his title?

Once you know to look for it, you’ll see this toxic meme everywhere. Take this Hillary press release:

“We need a leader with a clear vision and sound judgment, who can work with a Democratic Congress to renew the promise of America. Hillary is that leader,” Rep. Wasserman Schultz said.

No. We need a President.**

(Now, to be fair to Hillary_{MR SUBLIMINAL Why?} they all do it. But watch to see who makes it the basis of their pitch…)

Now, some might say the leader meme is only the kind of mental laziness that takes its cues from books on “leadership” in airport bookstores; or the more sinister provincialism that thinks the entire country should be run like a megachurch).

I think it’s worse, because the United States. Does. Not. Have. A. Leader. The United States has a President (US Constitution, Article II, Section 1).

And if you think that a “leader” is all-important, and that “leadership” is the only thing that will save the country, then I suggest that you expand your vocabulary by learning a new word:  Read more 

Of the Gonzales no-confidence vote, Bush sneers:

“They can have their votes of no confidence, but it’s not going to make the determination about who serves in my government,” Bush said in Sofia, Bulgaria, the last stop on a weeklong visit to Europe.

“This process has been drug out a long time,” Bush added. “It’s political.”

I guess the experience of being wildly cheered by Albanians has caused Bush to forget something very important:  Read more 

The Decider cuts loose with another one, lets the mask slip, and reveals his authoritarianism for all to see:

[BUSHH] On my grade, I could have — we — the federal government, and I’m responsible for the federal government, could have done better in coordinating with the state and local government in its response.

(Video here)

Um, no. Last I checked, the Federal government had three branches. Let’s review:

The federal government has three branches: the executive, legislative, and judicial. Through a system of separation of powers, each of these branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of its authority, in turn, regulated by one or both of the other branches.

The reasoning behing the separation of powers is best spelled out in James Madison’s famous Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.  Read more 

In the words of Dear Leader:

“[BUSH] I’m the decider and I decide what’s best.”

And for people unclear on the concept, here’s the definition:  Read more