Instapundit claims that Nancy Pelosi hasn’t accomplished anything, and thus shouldn’t write a memoir. Clearly, the guy who’s a law professor who writes a hackish weblog is far ahead of a woman who has been elected to congress 10 times, served as the first female House Minority Whip, first female House Minority Leader, and first female Speaker Of The House (in the entire history of the country we’ve only had 60 Speakers).
Oh yeah, she also raised five children.
Yes, Nancy Pelosi hasn’t done a thing. Why does anyone take Glenn Reynolds remotely seriously?
Just think what he would have said had she worn a V-Neck top
Wasn’t he pushing the Nancy-wore-a-headscarf “scandal”? And ignoring the Laura-Bush-wore-a-headscarf “scandal”? The reason conservatives like him is because he will, on command, intellectually humiliate himself for their cause. He’s a whipped dog, and they can’t get enough of his high-pitched whines.
Haha!!
Dr. Victor, you nailed it.
Instaputz: The scruples of a whipped dog.
Hahahah!!
Oliver pretty much summed up Nancy Pelosi’s career, and it all fits on a cocktail napkin too.
It’s a vanity excercise. Why kill trees when a blog post will do.
Heheheh oh yeah, as if Pelosi is the only person in Congress who raised children.
If that is all you can point to for accomplishments up there, she is finito.
Just as well it CLEARLY FUCKING ISN’T AND WAS IN FACT A FUCKING AFTERTHOUGHT, YOU MORON.
The one problem with her writing her memoirs is that they’ll probably be more interesting after she retires rather than now, when she’s been Speaker for fully seven months (and OMG hasn’t ended hunger and war forever in that time).
A law proffessor and not a lawyer? I wonder why.
Way to miss the point guys. Hastert had been speaker for 6 years when he wrote his book. Gingrich 4 years.
The last person to write their memoirs so fast after assuming Speaker-ship was Jim Wright, the book which ultimately got him kicked out of office. Is that road REALLY one the Democratics want to re-tread?
Hastert wrote a memoir? What is it, like a pamphlet at the doctor’s office?
That’s what I said, Farris. But it’s hardly worth a blog post. Billie Piper wrote an autobiography. Wayne Rooney, for god’s sake, when he was still a teenager.
Why does anyone take Glenn Reynolds remotely seriously?
They don’t.
There’s also the matter of timing. The article says the book is due Summer of 2008. At which point I’m sure she’ll do the standard book tour with solo spots on Meet the Press, GMA, 60 Minutes, Larry King, etc. Not to mention the opportunity to spew talking points to fawning local media. All right during the middle of the Campaign. Hmmm….
Oh, right, like no-one but Pelosi would ever do such a thing.
That’s an accomplishment right there, you Rethug numbskulls.
Her book will inspire Dem voters, especially women, and give them an investment in the political process AND a positive role model.
GOOO Nancy!!
First female Speaker of the House is certainly worth a book. Remember,, Newt’s book scandal was far bigger than Wright’s and RepubliConTarians still love his corrupt butt.
Mike, there was no ’scandal’ with Newt’s book. Democrats were just pissed off he was making so much money on it.
Her book will inspire Dem voters, especially women, and give them an investment in the political process AND a positive role model.
Actually, her book is more likely to bore people as autobiographies of sitting politicians don’t do that well (Dem or Rep). Raising 5 children is not worthy of a book, or else my mother in law who raised six kids will be next in line. The number of times a person is elected is also not a big deal.
Yes, it is a big deal for her to be the first female Speaker of The House, but her book would do better if she waited a few years and was able to write about being in that position and what the overall experience was like. She’s been Speaker for just under seven months now. What is there to write about?
In addition, she’s a legislator. She’ll put everybody to sleep talking about all of the legislation she has supported or opposed. Executive politicians (Mayors, Governors, Presidents) do much better with books because they have that story to tell about what they did in that span of time they oversaw the city, state or country.
That isn’t to say that I agree with Glenn that she hasn’t accomplished anything, but who would honestly read her book?
Jay, you certainly do have a typical wingnut blindspot for the hypocrites who wear the “R”.
THere was a HUGE scandal about that particular Newt book.
Here
The 1995 Murdoch Deal
You probably heard something about Newt’s book scandal. He was offered first $2.5 million, then $4.5 million by Harper Collins, a publishing company owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox TV network and newspapers and TV stations around the world. Murdoch has been having problems with a complaint by NBC that Fox is a foreign owned TV network, which is against US law.
In the past, Harper Collins has offered million dollar book contracts to several conservative politicians in countries where Murdoch was having regulatory trouble, including England (Margaret Thatcher, Jeffrey Archer) and China (Deng Xiaoping’s daughter). A week after the initial offer, Newt met with Rupert Murdoch – and Murdoch’s legislative lobbyist – to discuss politics, including the NBC complaint. As facts about the deal were made public, and even Republicans criticized him, Gingrich decided to give up the $4.5 million advance for a still-lucrative deal based on royalties.
Gingrich’s story kept changing through the controversy.
First, Newt’s spokesman said that Murdoch knew nothing about Gingrich and the book deal. On Friday January 13, Newt’s spokesman admitted that Murdoch actually met Newt on a park bench the week before the deal was made, but didn’t talk about it. He also said he knew nothing about Murdoch’s lobbyist being at their meeting. The next day, he admitted the lobbyist was there, but claimed he didn’t say so because no one asked.
Newt also said repeatedly that the book wasn’t his idea; that a literary agent named Lynn Chu had sought him out and proposed it. After Ms. Chu said that Gingrich’s associate Jeff Eisenach called her first on Newt’s behalf, Eisenach and Newt’s spokesman admitted that was true…”
Wellstone, if it was such a HUGE scandal, then why did nothing come of it? What was at issue was the amount of the advance and whether or not he was capitalizing on his office. It was a HUGE story, but it was not a HUGE scandal. Get a grip.
J, how can you be that dense and still be able to breathe? What political party was in charge of both houses of Congress when Gingrich’s book deal came up? Who exactly was going to censure him in anyway?
Gee, J doesn’t seem to be too concerned with Gingrich using his office for good but let a Dem get a $400 haircut…
, how can you be that dense and still be able to breathe? What political party was in charge of both houses of Congress when Gingrich’s book deal came up? Who exactly was going to censure him in anyway?
Oh, so now it was all a conspiracy? I see. And you call me dense.
The ethics committee didn’t investigate the book deal because it was plain as day that nothing was done improperly, despite the squealing of guys like David Bonior who seemed to be able to do nothing more than file ethics complaints against Gingrich. Like I said, Democrats didn’t like the amount of money Gingrich was getting, nothing more which is why to keep them from blubbering about it any more he agreed to reduce his advance to a whole dollar. The deal did prompt rule changes with regard to book royalties and advances.
The GOP played the same baby game when Hillary got her book deal.
And I could care less about Edwards $400 haircut.
Learn to read j. I didn’t say it was a “conspiracy”. It doesn’t have to be a “conspiracy” for Republicans to ignore the malfeasance of one of their own, its called “business as usual”.
You apparently see nothing wrong with Gingrich taking money from someone in a personal deal who has business in front of the legislative body (that he runs)? Wow. I guess we know why America is rejecting “conservatism”.
Learn to read j. I didn’t say it was a “conspiracy”.
No you merely implied it was a conspiracy and implied that the reason why Gingrich didn’t face any discipline.
Actually, I do find it wrong for representatives and Senators to get paid by companies who may have business before Congress. That doesn’t change the fact that Gingrich was operating within the boundaries that were permissible at the time.
I don’t remember Democrats getting so antsy however, when Senator-elect Clinton cashed in with an $8 million advance from Simon and Schuster for her book.
I must have missed the part about Simon-Shuster having business in front of the Senate when she got her book deal.
Another false equivalence from J. Not surprising, however disappointing.