pudge's Journal: Nancy Pelosi: Hypocritical Schoolmarm

Nancy Pelosi idiotically said in response to the President's veto threat the other day, "Calm down with the threats. There's a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours."

Wha -- ? It is the President's constitutional role to veto bills. It's not disrespecting your constitutional role for him to threaten a veto for a provision he dislikes. That is, in fact, asserting his own constitutional role.

On the other hand, Pelosi is playing diplomat to Syria next week, against the wishes of the President. And that is, quite clearly and specifically, disrespecting the President's constitutional role as the nation's chief diplomat.

And no, it is not just a visit to say Yo to al-Assad. Her spokesman said:

As recommended by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan delegation led by Speaker Pelosi intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments in the region, including Syria.

Maybe Pelosi has never actually read the Constitution.

It would explain a lot.

She can read??

[mgessner]

Wow! Where did you come upon this news??

I thought she could just talk...

Vetos

[mwlewis]

Not to mention that in the early days, at least for our first president named George, the only reason he'd use the veto was if he thought something was unconstitutional--his right, but certainly not the limit of his veto power.

Maybe

[NeMon'ess]

Maybe she was thinking of Congress' constitutional role for crafting legislation.

Now, as for policy.

How is the balance of setting/making policy supposed to be split between the President and Congress? You can take issue with her choice of words, but I'm pretty sure she means to rebuke Bush by pointing out that Congress is going to set and make policy, and Bush needs to acknowledge that and work with Congress.

Re:

[pudge]

Maybe she was thinking of Congress' constitutional role for crafting legislation.

Yes, she was, surely. But Bush was not interfering with that. He was only giving them a heads-up as to what he was going to do if they crafted it in a certain way.

You can take issue with her choice of words, but I'm pretty sure she means to rebuke Bush by pointing out that Congress is going to set and make policy, and Bush needs to acknowledge that and work with Congress.

He does acknowledge that. And he acknowledges that if he disagrees strongly enough with their policy, then they need two-thirds of Congress to get it passed. He has no obligation to agree with the policy they want to set, and they cannot pass it without his approval, or the 2/3 supermajority.

Bush is respecting their role as much as it deserv