Election 2016: Keith Ellison: ‘I would love to see Elizabeth Warren’ run
As we all know by now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been cozying up to Syrian President Bashar Assad, and we also know that three House Republicans have visited Syria this week to meet with him, too.
Certain folks on the left are screaming ‘hypocrisy’ over the administration’s focus on Pelosi’s trip while not saying much about the trip to Syria that was also made this week by the three House Republicans. And, as usual, they’ve gotten it wrong. There’s a reason that the administration is focusing on Pelosi’s trip, which I noted in a comment to this post at Hot Air, which I’m reposting here:
I’m not happy about the three Republicans who went to visit Assad, but let’s face it, no one knows who these guys are and that won’t change even after they’ve come and gone. And, even though the WH has tried to discourage visits from members of Congress to Syria, presumably these three Republicans wouldn’t bad mouth the administration and would push the same policies that the administration has.
OTOH, the symbolism of Pelosi’s visit to Syria couldn’t be more powerful. She’s third in line to the presidency, the first female Speaker of the House, arguably the â€˜most powerful woman in America’ and has openly slammed the administration’s policies not just towards Syria, but the entire Middle East (and beyond, for that matter). So there’s no way in hell that she’s there to represent US interests. Nancy Pelosi is there to represent the Democratic party’s interests – and her own interests, which are, in no particular order, power, power, and power – thrown in with a mixture of defiance and callous indifference to how the actions of her and her “delegation” may affect US/Syrian relations (which are already strained as it is). This is no different from the Chairman of the DNC having chats with â€˜world leaders’ and telling them that things will be different and better once a Democrat (again, presumably) takes control of the WH in 2008.
Update I: Hmm. Just thought of this: Is there a possible feminism angle at play here, as well? Bush discourages her from going, and she defies him and goes anyway, thereby sending the message that just because he’s a man he can’t ‘order her around’ – I know, it sounds junior high schoolish, but then again, so much about the left’s definition of feminism already does anyway.
Update II: Did she or didn’t she deliver the wrong message from Israel to Assad? Allah has a link roundup and speculates.
This is one of those times where I want to cover my eyes and tell someone to let me know when this is all over …