Streetwise Professor

November 3, 2022

The Real Political Implications of the Pelosi Beatdown

Filed under: Politics — cpirrong @ 6:19 pm

Has-been attention hound (I cleaned that up!) Hillary (this phrase would be just as alliterative if I had used the original word!) went onto the Joy Reid show to discuss political violence in the aftermath of hammer time with Paul Pelosi. She claimed that the attack on Pelosi is reflective of “a streak of violence, of racism, misogyny, antisemitism.”

Er, it was an attack on a white male Italian Catholic. 0 for 3 there, Hillary.

This demonstrates the intellectual laziness of the left. They are as predictable as my daughter’s old See and Say Barbie: pull the cord and the same phrases come out, time after time after time. Racism blah blah blah misogyny blah blah blah white supremacy blah blah blah.

But it’s more than just laziness: it’s a signal of who is beyond the pale. A signal that the people at whom these epithets are hurled so repetitively are to be shunned, ostracized, and worse. So facts don’t matter. There need be no basis for the assertion. They are nothing more than imprecations hurled at the hated. Marking with the sign of the beast.

It is beyond unseemly that the Democrats’ race to politicize the assault on Pelosi began within nanoseconds of its disclosure. With absolutely no basis, the Democrats and the media (pardon my stutter) pegged the assailant as driven to madness by MAGA.

No, by all appearances, he was driven to madness by madness, and had arrived at the destination years ago. And he lived in Berkeley for crissakes. The city with the lowest Trump vote in the nation. And those who did vote for him were probably so zonked out of their minds they didn’t realize what they were doing.

And though I will not speculate about the assault–I have questions! Which the SF police seem hell bent on not answering, refusing to release police body cam footage (the assault itself occurred after police had arrived) and home security footage. If it’s so open and shut, why the secrecy? (In a characteristic display of New Speak, the WaPo claims that releasing more evidence would feed conspiracy theories not dispel them. Riiiiggghhhht.)

It’s also interesting that the Feds swooped in to indict the perp, even though most of the crimes are clearly local in nature–B&E, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, etc. No doubt given San Francisco’s very lenient bail policies the Feds want to make sure this guy stays on ice and doesn’t start blabbing. (This also protects the SF police and prosecutor from having to explain away double standards if they did not release the suspect, given they release pretty much everybody else.)

Speaking of ICE, since the politicization door has already been opened, it’s fascinating to note that the perp is an illegal alien. (A Canadian not MS13 or anything, but still–here illegally.). He overstayed his visa for something like 14 years.

Nancy Pelosi is of course a big fan of immigrants, and a big enemy of deporting illegal ones. She has made numerous maudlin statements about how wonderful and great illegal immigrants are, and how they enrich American society, and how it’s evil to suggest some might be criminals and, you know, go upside a senior citizen’s head with a ball peen hammer.

Further regarding the political angle here. It appears that the perp (David DePape) is yet another sad example of the epidemic of insane homeless/transient people that infest many American cities, and are a particular curse in the Bay Area. Again courtesy of leftist politicians of whom Nancy Pelosi is an avatar.

I think I remember hearing something a few years back about chickens coming home to roost. Well, here you go.

Also on the political implications of this, it has been revealed that the crack Capitol Police had Pelosi’s home under video surveillance . . . but just happened not to be paying attention when all this went down. Sort of like Epstein’s jailers, I guess.

The Capitol Police response is priceless. They regret the lapse and it is under investigation. But . . . never let a crisis go to waste! The head of the Capitol Police is using this as an opportunity to get more resources!

“We fucked up, so we need more money.”

That, ladies and gentlemen, is government in a nutshell.

So yes, there are many political implications of the Pelosi assault. It just so happens that none of them are the one that Hillary and other Democrats are pushing.

No doubt you find that shocking!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. today, a crazy person(presumably a Democrat) fired shots into a GOP candidate’s home in North Carolina. I am wondering what pushes society over the edge?

    Comment by Jeff Carter (@pointsnfigures1) — November 3, 2022 @ 10:16 pm

  2. “like Epstein’s jailers”: just what my wife said!

    P.S. If Geriatric Joe doesn’t run in 2024 will Hasbeen Hellbitch have another go at it?

    (I almost typed “have another shot at it” but that might have been misinterpreted as an unkind allusion to the fate of Seth Rich.)

    Comment by dearieme — November 4, 2022 @ 7:25 am

  3. The left haven’t exactly cornered the market WRT intellectual laziness – the right in America continue to lead the way with their whole ongoing ‘stolen election’ narrative. The deeply depressing thing is that this insanity has now become the norm – no election shall ever go unchallenged from here on in. It’s also being picked up by knuckle-dragging wannabe despots across the globe (has Bolsanaro broken cover yet?).

    Not sure if I’ve shared my cod theory on why we’re experiencing exponential growth in the terminally credulous across the globe. It’s ennui, pure and simple; people are bored, particularly those living in rural areas. Take the US, with its huge, pretty much empty interior – apart from huntin’ and fishin’ and aping your ancestors, there’s f*ck all to do, nothing to intellectually exercise people, no different people to meet, no alternative views to challenge their world views etc. Add to the mix Fox, the gonzo Carlson, social media and pyromaniacs like Kari Lake, et voila, a perfectly pliable and obedient voter base eager to do your bidding.

    Comment by David Mercer — November 4, 2022 @ 7:38 am

  4. @DM, then there’s Joe Biden who made a prime time speech saying if you don’t vote for us, democracy goes away. And numerous Democrats, saying, if they don’t win, the Republicans stole the election. It’s Dimb and Dumber over here. How’s it over there? Three unelected PMs in one year.

    Comment by The Pilot — November 4, 2022 @ 8:13 am

  5. @ Pilot: It’s funny cos I recall reading that the Dems almost went there in 2016, but thought better of it. Little did they know the swivel-eyed GOPher tendency would gleefully seize and wield this weapon.

    We’re muddling along here, as per usual. Technically the first of our 2 PMs this year were elected, the latter dimwit by some bored country-dwelling racists (a case in point). Honestly, WTAF were they expecting?? The current guy was coronated, like Chad. We’re all yearning for some deeply boring politics.

    Comment by David Mercer — November 4, 2022 @ 9:03 am

  6. Elected, only in the sense his “riding” elected him after being selected by his MPs. Hardly a nation-wide vote for Boris. Truss was out of her depth, but calling fellow citizens ‘country dwelling racists” is not only impolite, it’s impolitic and insulting. However, leftie progressive politics has always been about their plantation and outsiders are hardly worthy of recognition.

    Comment by The Pilot — November 4, 2022 @ 10:31 am

  7. I should explain that “unelected PMs” is an expression applied only to Conservative PMs. I don’t think it was ever applied to Labour PMs – Callaghan or Brown. It’s one of those clever lies-by-implication: if we had a Presidential system it would make sense e.g. Truman was (at first) an unelected President. (Although even then I might object that he was elected Vice-President with everyone understanding that he’d fill in if/when FDR died.)

    But our PMs are never elected by a nationwide (but state-by-state) plebiscite as US President’s are; they are always PMs only while they command a majority of the House of Commons. Still, if you don’t like our parliamentary system but are too cowardly to say so, prattling about a PM being unelected is one way to go about it.

    As for Biden’s stolen election: who can say? It was an American election. Democrats were involved, So of course there was lots of cheating on the voting. Was it enough to alter the result? God knows. The only thing I can be sure of is that people who say it’s certain that it didn’t alter the result are fools or knaves.

    Comment by dearieme — November 4, 2022 @ 11:39 am

  8. Re: US elections, just remember the US electoral system was, after 8 years of Democrat control, so corrupt that Trump could win. Yet after 4 years of Republican control it was squeaky clean and Biden won all fair and square

    Re: election fraud, it happens all the time in every election. The question is can it be coordinated to the point of making a difference. In the US probably given a competent organization, so the GOP is out then.

    Re: DMercers cod theory, I’ll see that and raise my own. 20 years of being able to get an immediate answer to a question on the internet. No thinking needed. Do whatever your phone tells you. Just like TV was up until the sixties, thrusted without question.

    Comment by Anymouse Cowherd — November 4, 2022 @ 2:03 pm

  9. and click on English…

    Comment by Mike — November 4, 2022 @ 3:14 pm

  10. In other news, it looks like Musk will indeed “sort out” Twitter and do us all a favour. I’m not talking about that free speech guff – I doubt he’ll get much of a chance to loosen the content restrictions before the platform dies in his arms. What then will all those idlers do with all that extra free time, I wonder?

    Comment by David Mercer — November 5, 2022 @ 4:52 am

  11. “What then will all those idlers do with all that extra free time, I wonder?” I suggest they take up knitting. It’s my hope that there will soon be plenty of opportunities for tricoteuses.

    Comment by dearieme — November 5, 2022 @ 8:23 am

  12. @ The Pilot

    Strictly, all UK PMs are unelected. Nobody elects the PM. Voters elect local MPs, and they in turn nominate MPs to be party leader, one of who is elected by the party membership at large. If the party has a majority in the Commons, that person by convention then becomes PM. But it’s only convention. The leader nominee need not be an MP. In the early 60s the PM was, briefly, someone from the House of Lords.

    This is why it is always rather laughable when the PM changes and the Opposition demands an election because the new one is “unelected”. The outgoing PM wasn’t elected either, and neither party is ever persuaded by this argument when itself in power.

    Weird though it is, the UK arrangement does somehow produce female leaders of the executive and also female heads of state. IIRC, the USA has not had a female head of state since Queen Anne, so we are doing something right 🙂

    Comment by Green as Grass — November 7, 2022 @ 4:28 am

  13. @ G-a-G. The process you describe only applies to the Tories. For Labour the unions’ block votes are counted (or at least they were was until Corbyn – I can’t recall if they changed it after this). No idea how the LibDems chose their leader – given there’s now only a handful of them they probably draw straws. The Greens are by far the most democratic, having an extensive consultation amongst their MP before a vote.

    Comment by David Mercer — November 7, 2022 @ 6:23 am

  14. @ DM

    Labour is similar. Candidates have to collect 10% of the PLP as nominees and those that do are then voted on by the members. Miliband made it OMOV. In theory there could be 10 candidates, but usually it’s more like four. Brown perpetrated the biggest scam by getting more than 90% of the PLP to nominate him, ensuring he was the only nominee. The Tories did similar with Howard and Sunak by getting rivals to stand aside.

    I have no idea how the LDs or Greens go about it, but let’s face it, who cares who their leaders are.

    Comment by Green as Grass — November 7, 2022 @ 12:56 pm

  15. Many commentators are lamenting the polarisation of politics in USA.
    They say it’s unhealthy, but I’m not sure that’s true.
    Here in UK we have two parties. On the environment, net zero, renewable energy, fiscal policy, diversity and inclusion, immigration, the monarchy, NHS, crime, etc there is not a smidgen of difference between them.
    There are differences of opinion – on Brexit or Ukraine for example – but the debate is wholly internal. We voters don’t count.
    Bu¿¿er consensus. Give me democracy, however noisy and bad tempered.

    Comment by philip — November 8, 2022 @ 7:56 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress