Hangin' in the Office with Nancy P.

By David Swanson

I had been to Nancy Pelosi's office in the Cannon House Office Building before. In fact, I'd been there several times and usually had a pleasant stay, often very quick and efficient, other times prolonged by everyone's enjoyment of the songs my friends in pink were singing, and as often as not resulting in new friendships with fine officers of the Capitol Police who accompanied us out. This time was going to be different.

Just a few of us went by there on Wednesday. No cameras. No songs. And no signs, since we'd already left those at the door with our Capitol Police friends, who continue to get the wrong impression about us. We walked in and said "Good afternoon," which they apparently mistook for the voice of the Filipino Monkey saying "We are come to slaughter your children."

Fearing our murderous threats, the police chose not to accompany us down the hall to Pelosi's crib. And, in fact, we were on a very devious mission. We were accompanying a 60-year-old retired college professor who had decided to walk 500 miles from his home to this office in order to ask for 5 minutes of Pelosi's time. John Nirenberg's story of the march he has now completed is at http://www.marchinmyname.org

John attracted a fair amount of attention on his way to D.C. and was able to meet with some members of Congress when he arrived. He said that his own conscience felt much better to him, having completed his walk. But it would not be truly complete until he sat down with Nancy and told her why he'd come: to ask her to put the power of impeachment back in the Constitution.

Nancy P. turns out to be one hip chick. The first thing you notice in her rather bare office is a large glossy magazine prominently displayed on a table. On the cover is a big photo of Nancy with Rudy Giuliani:

Of course we thought this was way cool, and we planned to ask Nancy if she really knew Giuliani and what he was like in person as soon as she got there.

Also in Nancy's office is an ugly sofa, a couple of boring desks, a young woman who pretends to be helpful, and mostly bare walls. Through the door to the left is a larger room where a couple of young men are wandering around, eating lunch, not saying anything to us or each other, and looking more bored than anything else. High on the far wall of the side room is a huge map of Pelosi's district in San Francisco. This is her district office. Her Speaker's office is across the street in the U.S. Capitol.

In fact, the young woman told us that Nancy was actually over there in the other office so we'd have to go over there if we wanted to see her. But when we asked how we could get in there, she helpfully pointed out that we couldn't. This seemed like a Catch-22 until she let John use her phone and call over there. You have to admit that was going out of her way, but the person on the other end of the phone seemed to think that Nancy was too busy. She'd been too busy for quite a while. John knew the staffers by name. He'd phoned, faxed, Emailed, registered mailed, and announced his request in the media. Nancy wasn't busy on the spur of the moment. She was so cool she'd been working on being busy for a month now. And she was definitely busy. So, the woman in the district office told us she'd find a staffer who could meet with us instead.

While we were waiting, I checked out the other desk in the room. It was missing a staffer, helpful or otherwise, but it did have a row of glossy brochures carefully fanned out on it. I took one. It said on the cover "The 110th Congress: A New Direction for America."

Shit, I thought, this sounds GOOD. I imagined Nancy was coming up with a different approach for 2008. But then I looked at the back cover, which listed a string of accomplishments from 2007. This confused me, since I couldn't recall any accomplishments from 2007.

Hmm.

What was on the list?

Seven of the things on the list were supposedly new things that had been passed by Congress and signed into law. But they were all either lame or misleading or both. One of them was a ban on deficit spending. Given that were dumping trillions of dollars into illegal foreign occupations, what would this mean for spending on things we actually need and want? Another achievement was supposedly "lobby and ethics reform." Most of the others were smallish items that had been slipped in as part of mammoth bills to further fund those illegal foreign occupations: things like token aid to victims of hurricanes, and a very partial correction to the plummeting minimum wage, etc.

Then there were four other achievements that were actually bills that the House had passed, knowing they would be vetoed, and which were in fact vetoed. So, these were dubious achievements, but even as false claims, two of them were false on their own terms. The House never passed anything that could accurately be described as "Energy Security and Reducing Global Warming" or "Holding the Administration Accountable for the War in Iraq".

That last claim would have been very interesting to bring up with Nancy. Now we would have to discuss it with a staffer. But the staffer sure was taking a while. He or she took so long, I read the whole propaganda booklet. I hadn't previously seen anything as dishonest outside of the Office of the Vice President. After a while, John asked the woman at the desk when the staffer was coming, and she said it wasn't going to happen after all. And the cool part was that she learned this telepathically, because she didn't have to phone the staffer to find it out.

With Nancy P. sportin' that hi-tech an office, why would anyone even consider giving money to a candidate running against her like Cindy Sheehan by making a contribution at http://cindyforcongress.org ?

The Democrats.

I think what has happened to the democrats in D.C. is they have all been replaced with human looking droids. They are programmed to give repetive stupid answers and to behave politely to any republican no matter how stupid or obnoxious the person behaves.

Filipino Monkey David? Whats with that? ...

Quite a slur against one of the most friendly nations in the Pacific we have.

Care to explain your choice of slurs?

A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.

Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623

 

The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.

Grinch, the reference is to

Grinch, the reference is to the Strait of Hormuz heckler who may have been responsible for the "threatening" radio messages recently:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/

Still, it is a degrading message to throw out there with no frame of reference.

so you would

condone a racist reference to people who live in a nation that's less "friendly"?

who's "we" white man?

David Swanson
david@davidswanson.org
http://www.davidswanson.org

Actually David, I wouldn't

Actually David, I wouldn't condone a racist message about anyone, regardless of their politics.

i mean

A link would be nice

there are some of us who work and don't have as much time to keep up with this stuff. If you're going to mention a 'Filipino Monkey' it would be better to make it a link than to give the impression that it is your term.

Just my two cents...

 

 

 

 

Usama bin Forgotten

 

LootieMaye, shame on you!

You work???
.
.
.
If you had worked harder as a zygote you could have arranged to come out of an Aristocratic womb ;)

---------

David,

grinch may have been pointed, but using the term "friendly" in his comment does help with the mildly-bigoted patriotic set who may have interpreted your comment in isolation. (All kinds visit blogs).

I don't think using the term "friendly X" when trying to dissuade racism implies that its ok to be racist against "X". I have used the exact same reference when defending gays in small towns: Saying something like "I find so few really cool or loving individuals in this world that I don't care much about that other stuff". I've gotten scowls in return as well as positive responses. One GIANT of a man recently said something to the effect of "yeah, so and so is REALLY NICE...he doesn't do any of that STUFF around us though."

Jim

David, I don't think Grinch condones

ANY racist comment or reference.

The " Filipino Monkey" was hanging out there on its
own.

It's very easy to draw the wrong conclusions when
the term is not explained.

Sent to Her Majesty at AmericanVoices@mail.house.com

Hey, wake up, madam prima donna!

We vote you in, we vote you out. You think that we
common folk will "maybe just go away", like influenza
or a dream. Your mistake, Nancy. The common folk will never go away, and certainly not gently, as long as you oldsters in D.C. continue to act like Lords and Ladies. And they won't go away like a dream; they'll remain and become your worst nightmare.

Just a few words from someone who lives outside the bubble. Bubbles break, you know.

Pelosi&Hoyer

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer will not put impeachment on the table because according to Hoyer" No Crimes have been commited as far as he knows. "DAH"

Steny Hoyer as a Lawyer is not to bright! Steny made this comment to a group of Law Students when the question was asked of him why impeachment was not considered.  Nancy does not want to impeach because she would have to admit to knowing all about the waterboarding and knowing it is torture.  These two are as sleazy as the Republicans.

Although it's drown out of

Although it's drown out of the context that affirmation sounds kind of racist. In a world that embraces acceptance and tolerance toward all people on this Earth, this is a mistake that can be easily misunderstood. Looking back at history, we can't afford racist ideas to be embraced again.
___________
Binder Pockets