Remember writing “compare and contrast” essays in school? The assignment may have been something like: compare and contrast the American and French Revolutions, or compare and contrast the Boston and Charleston Tea Parties, for example. Invariably, research revealed enough areas of commonality and distinction to provide sufficient and substantive examples in both the compare and contrast categories to complete the assignment.
However, the task to compare and contrast is decidedly more difficult when it comes to Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has represented California’s Eighth District in the House of Representatives since 1987, and Republican John Dennis, a successful and respected businessman and entrepreneur seeking to unseat her in the November 2010, mid-terms election. That’s because there really are no bona fide areas of overlap in the compare department, notwithstanding superficial, trivial and meaningless connections made solely for the effort of including something in that category, i.e.: they are both candidates for the position.
John Dennis could not be more different than Nancy Pelosi in both style and substance. And, in the shadow of Massachusetts’s historic election of Republican Scott Brown, the message Americans are sending is a clear and resounding call for striking contrasts and concrete change.
An examination of the contrasts between Nancy Pelosi and John Dennis must certainly include a review of Pelosi’s voting record, provided courtesy of HumanEvents.com.
Nancy Pelosi voted:
NO on the Border Security Bill
NO on making the Republican tax cuts permanent
NO on eliminating the marriage penalty
NO on eliminating the death tax
NO on creating Health Savings Accounts
NO on the 1996 Welfare Reform Law
(and NO on its reauthorization)
NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance
NO on banning partial-birth abortion
NO on requiring a photo I.D. to ensure only legal voters vote
NO on authorizing domestic tracking of terrorists
NO on military tribunals and new interrogation rules for
terrorist detainees
Contrast the above to John Dennis’s platform and positions, all of which can be found at his website,www.johndennis2010.com. A brief primer includes:
YES on Immigration reform
- End of birthright citizenship
- No amnesty for illegal aliens
- No government services to illegal immigrants
YES on a scheduled reduction of income taxes leading to the repeal of the
16th Amendment
YES on the right to bear arms as defined by the Second Amendment
YES on REAL healthcare reform measures:
- Make all out-of-pocket medical expenses tax deductible
- Make insurance premiums paid by individuals tax deductible
- Eliminate legal impediments that restrict companies from opening
health Savings Accounts for employees
- Repeal government imposed requirements on what insurance
companies must cover.
- Use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which allows the
federal government to make interstate commerce “regular” to
repeal state laws preventing insurance companies from competing across state lines
- End corn subsidies
- End tobacco subsidies
- Urge states to loosen medical care licensing requirements and
enact reasonable, carefully considered tort reform
YES to cutting government spending
YES to the Tenth Amendment 10-4 Pledge – 10 Affirmations on
government and the sovereignty of the People; 10 Promises to be kept while holding public office.
But, perhaps the greatest contrast between John Dennis and Nancy Pelosi may be found in the attributes of honor and integrity.
A self-made man, John Dennis exemplifies these qualities and has earned a solid reputation based on trust, fidelity and an exemplary work ethic. Creating, innovating, leading and succeeding in businessto the degree to which John Dennis has excelled, demonstrates not only acute business acumen, but also personal responsibility and strong ethics. The private sector demands competence, honesty, fairness, and accountability of business owners, or they do not flourish to the level John Dennis has. No one knows better the lessons of pulling ones self up by the bootstraps, as it is said, than someone who starts life in public housing, then builds a successful life and organizations through education, hard work, tenacity and the simple yet demanding decision to constantly earn the trust and confidence of those who rely on his use of good judgment.
By contrast, Nancy Pelosi has spent the better part of her adult life as a politician, and has much to account for in terms of public trust and accountability, not only with California voters, but also with Americans at large.
Locally, Pelosi is currently engaged in an effort to potentially overturn the voters will by financially supporting a ballot measure, known as “California’s first-in-the-nation citizens redistricting commission,” according to this Los Angeles Times article. The measure “would abolish the existing citizens commission, which is currently accepting applications and is set to redraw California’s legislative districts in 2011,” according to the Times, “Voters created that panel when they approved Proposition 11 in 2008.” And, as this Ventura County Star article points out, “California voters passed Proposition 11, the Voters First Act, in 2008, to establish a redistricting process that is not led by politicians or consultants. Proposition 11 gives community members a major role in the California redistricting process by transferring authority for establishing Assembly, Senate and Board of Equalization district boundaries to an independent 14-member Citizens Redistricting Commission. The first task of the Citizens Redistricting Commission will be to adjust district lines following the 2010 Census.” Why would Nancy Pelosi be opposed to an inclusive commission designed by and for the people who work and live in the communities they have a vested interest in serving? None of these people are politicians; none owe her any favors; none receive any benefit from her PAC or position. Perhaps, therein lies the answer.
And, “Why would Pelosi and Co. pour thousands of dollars into a campaign to a repeal a ballot measure they did not actively oppose two years ago?” the Los Angeles Times article asks. Perhaps because, a potential third redistricting ballot measure that would give the existing citizens commission the power to also draw lines for Congress is currently gathering signatures to be placed on the November ballot, according to the article. “Democratic political strategists say, the best way to ensure a “no” vote this fall on the congressional measure is to confuse the public further with a second ballot measure on the already head-spinning topic of political line-drawing.”
Confusion, tricks, deals, marginalization and a 23-year incumbency appear to be some of Pelosi’s tools of the trade for undermining the voters’ will.
Most recently on the national level, despite a clear majority rejection of a what many consider a fundamentally flawed, 2000 page, pork-infested health care reform bill, Pelosi continues a push even Scott Brown’s election does not deter. Growing numbers of Americans feel Pelosi has no connection to the people she was elected to serve while others believe her obstinate refusal to listen reflects a distinct disdain for the will of the American people. Those sentiments are given credibility when she describes opposition to government run healthcare as “Un-American.” Demonizing dissent has done nothing but fan the flames of those who refuse to be marginalized by such tricks and tactics. Speaker Pelosi has created an unbridgeable gap between herself and all but a shrinking contingent of the people she was elected to serve. She merits so little respect from the American people, she is rated # 8 on Washington’s ten most corrupt politicians for 2009, according to this American Thinker article, and the situation is untenable.
As the Massachusetts message continues to resound loudly and clearly throughout the country, Pelosi continues to put her fingers in her ears and forge forward. Tenacity in the face of struggle is an attribute. But, there’s a major difference, or contrast, between tenacity and dogmatism. Nancy Pelosi continues to wag the dog (healthcare reform) while unemployment skyrockets and the economy plummets. She’s sunk her teeth in so far extraction will require the Jaws of Life. Even her own senior health advisor calls her push for passage through reconciliation, a “trick.” The thing is, Americans are fed up with tricks. Bribes and payoffs like the Landrieu Louisiana purchase and the Nelson Cornhuskers embolden and animate an increasingly impassioned populace eager to replace those who employ “tricks,” or close their eyes and ears to calls for Constitutional conformity.
John Dennis, on the other hand, has demonstrated genuine tenacity; the kind required to create and build successful businesses, overcome obstacles and make tough budgetary decisions that ensure a company’s longevity. He understands the consequence and value of listening to the people to whom he owes his success and to those who depend on him to make the best possible decisions while employing good judgment and thoughtful, deliberate consideration. Accordingly, John Dennis has signed the Tenth Amendment Center’s 10-4 Pledge, 10 Promises to be kept while holding public office. Not so, Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker Pelosi, by contrast, has not only alienated Americans who feel their voices go unheard, but also those with whom she is sanctioned to serve for the good of the country. Last year, for example, her obstinate insistence that she knew nothing specific about the CIA’s interrogation methods, started a firestorm of controversy and finger-pointing that undermined not only the integrity of her office, but that of the CIA. In April 2009, the Speaker said, “We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.” But, according to an article by Ryan Wenger, entitled Did Nancy Pelosi know about waterboarding? CIA records showed Pelosi was briefed on “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (EITs) by the CIA in 2002. Wenger states, “During the briefing, Pelosi and other lawmakers were told about use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.” For a week, Speaker Pelosi continued to make one excuse after another, finally insisting that she and Congress had been “misled” by the CIA, before refusing to answer any more questions.
Nancy Pelosi made a great deal of noise about holding President G.W. Bush accountable for his decisions regarding the Iraq War. But, her desire to hold others accountable, is not apparently, a self-imposed expectation. In 2008, records revealed she funneled nearly $100,000.00 of PAC funds to her husband’s firm over a ten year period, yet supported a ban on paying spouses with political donations, as reported in this Washington Times article by Jennifer Haberkorn. Pelosi’s office defended the payments saying they were legal compensation at fair market value for the work her husband’s firm performed for the PAC. The article states ethics watchdogs said the arrangement “sends the wrong message” and is considered ‘problematic.’ Haberkorn’s article quotes Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit ethics and watchdog group, as follows, “‘From what I understand, Mr. Pelosi doesn’t need the money, but this isn’t the issue. As speaker of the House, it sends the wrong message. She shouldn’t be putting family members on the payroll.’”
Speaker Pelosi’s recent betrayal of public trust occurred this past December when flying high on the proverbial hog with her Copenhagen congregation at tax payer expense, she employed two military jets and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on what amounted to a Christmas, European family vacation under the guise of attending the “Climate Summit.” A Newsbusters article detailing the trip’s expenses begs the question: Why? Why would Nancy Pelosi’s judgment be so skewed to believe an extravagant, tax-payer funded trip was a good idea at a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs and the national debt’s trajectory is so far north even Santa Claus can no longer see it with the naked eye? Either she possesses an alarming lack of judgment or a blatant indifference for the current American condition. Speaker Pelosi’s pattern of obtuse disregard for, in essence, her employers, would warrant dismissal in any private sector job.
The good news is Californian’s CAN fire Nancy Pelosi – at the voting booth. She’s had plenty of time behind the wheel. It’s time for a new driver; one whose integrity, character, business experience and innovative ideas can help pull California out of the ditch.
Jill Flyer graduated from Houston Baptist University with a double major in political science and mass media. She worked as an assignments editor, field producer and writer in the Houston television news market before moving to California, where she worked in news, as well as television documentary and series research and development. As a public relations executive, she has represented television shows, feature and documentary films, as well as talent. Best job ever: Raising her two sons, now ages 16 and 13, while continuing to research and write about political and cultural issues.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2010 by California Tenth Amendment Center
