I Approve of Nancy Pelosi

Paul Kane of The Washington Post discussed the drop in the approval of Nancy Pelosi for the first time in her tenure as the Speaker in the house. Her approval fell from 51 in January to 46 last week. Her disapproval climbed from 35 to 44 in the same time period. Most analysts, and anybody paying any attention to anything, have concluded that this change is as a result of the administrations lambasting of her over her trip to Syria.

I don't blame the people who have changed their opinion of Nancy. It's understandable that many Americans would disapprove of a member of Congress going to a country that the President, who sets foreign policy, has so clearly condemned as an enemy. If a member went to Iran or North Korea the drop in approval would be understandable and the President probably wouldn't even have to say so. We are clearly boarding on the edge of hostilities with these nations and even if we think the President is wrong, it is his constitutional role to set foreign policy.

My problem is with the pure hypocrisy of this administration. They are not attacking Pelosi because she went to Syria, they're attacking her because she is the Speaker of the House and is a Democrat. What cleared this all up for me is a section of Kane's article:

"And Clyburn noted that at least three different sets of Republicans had also been to Syria, delivering similar messages to Assad as Pelosi did. 'There's something disingenuous about all that,' he said of the Bush-Cheney criticism of Pelosi."

The administration cannot have it both ways. It cannot be fine if Republicans go, but boarding on treachery for the Democratic Speaker to do the same. It is the President's job to set Foreign Policy specifically because it is important to have a consistent policy, not so that he can use international events for political gain. This President as my esteemed colleague, Paine, so elegantly discussed in "John Bolton's Democratic Theory" has tried to rearrange the entire purpose of our democratic regime. The founder's didn't put the president in charge of foreign policy to make him King they did so to provide a reasonable amount of predictability and consistency for the rest of the World so that we were accepted as a civilized nation. The President's interpretation of his power is purely a political fiction created to give him and his party free reign. My approval of Nancy Pelosi has only gone up because of this incident. Her decision to go to Syria in the face of Presidential Criticism shows a true understanding of our democracy and an appreciation of the importance of good relations and soft power in the Middle East.

I wish that mainstream media would focus more on these discrepancies in logic of the administration, but considering the shear number of ridiculous positions take by the Bushies it understandable if not all of them are caught.

~Jefferson