There’s been a severe case of Foot-in-Mouth disease going around lefty circles recently, with Dick Durbin and Howard Dean being two of the highest profile examples. I guess this is what happens when vainglorious simpletons are given power beyond their measure to [ab]use as they see fit. However, two very public luminaries of the Left establishment have done their best to wipe all possible mention of Durbin and Dean off the front pages in the space of a single day.
First, Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth and removes all doubt as to the quality of her mental faculties:
Q Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.
Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?
Ms. Pelosi. As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we’re going to withhold funds for the Court because we don’t like a decision.
Q Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn’t involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn’t be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.
Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church — powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.
So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I’m not saying that I’m opposed to this decision, I’m just saying in general.
Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?
Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It’s an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.
Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?
Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.
Ho. Lee. Crap. The emphasized portion is the part that the Right side of the blogosphere is reacting to, but the entire interview is filled with even more inadvertently comedic moments, courtesy of the leader of the minority party in the lower house of Congress. Ms. Pelosi not only needs an Intro to ConLaw course or two, but she probably ought to spend some time catching up on big, important current events. What, precisely, is wrong with the residents of San Francisco? What led them to select this intellectual flyweight to represent them? And what in Heaven’s name possessed the House Democrats to nominate her?
Next up is Brian “Pretty Boy” Williams, NBC Nightly News anchor extraordinaire and all-around Useful Idiot. No one expects News Script Readers to be exceptionally intelligent, but Williams really took the cake last night by comparing the Founding Fathers to the new president of Iran and repeated the now-common Lefty slur equating the founders of the US to Islamic terrorists:
In his newscast tonight, “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams compared America’s first presidents to the president-elect of Iran, alleged hostage-taker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying they were “certainly revolutionaries and might have been called terrorists by the British crown.”
At least six of the Americans held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran as hostages for 444 days claim Ahmadinejad was one of the leaders of the captors, having recognized him on television reports.
Williams’ comment came in a question to reporter Andrea Mitchell.
At the end of Mitchell’s report, Williams asked, “What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called ‘terrorists’ by the British crown, after all.”
Wow. Just wow. Of course, Williams’ use of the passive voice and the indefinite “someone” allows him to avoid direct culpability for propagating this slur, but I believe he owes the American public a sincere and heartfelt apology.
(Michelle Malkin is all over both stories.)
Looks like Molly Ivins has caught the bug, too. Not that I’m all that surprised:
I think it has done nothing but harm to the United States of America. I think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been sullied. I think we have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.
Hoooo-kay. Arthur Chrenkoff suitably takes this inanity down.