It is for this reason, and this reason alone that I withdraw my previous opinion that it might be better if the Republicans lost the House. I love to read The Economist, but I'm not a fan of their current endorsement. In it, they say that the Democrats should have control of the House, and then go on to list many reasons why, in my opinion, Nancy Pelosi should never get close to that kind of agenda shaping power.
I was aware of all these reasons not to like her before, but I was willing to swallow my distaste because I thought the Republicans could use a wake-up call, and the US could use some divided government to get the budget and excess regulation-making under control. Plus, I think the Republican's could use some plausible deniability for the state of the world in the run up to the 2008 elections.
Those reasons are now all moot. Even though I knew that the speaker of the house was third in line for the presidency since forever ago, it never connected in my mind that Nancy Pelosi would be this person. Prior to this, the best reason for not assassinating President Bush was that Cheney would assume power, and that Hastert (or Delay) would after Cheney. However, now that would not be the case. I call on the secret service to step in and not allow the Democrats to take control of the House based on security reasons.
Just think what would happen if a bomb went off at the wrong time and we then had Madame President Pelosi, instead of just Madame Speaker Pelosi! I leave you with that nightmare as you get ready to vote on Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
That's one of the things that I always forget to think about; who could be in charge. A very scary thought.
ReplyDeleteIt's not as scary as I made it sound; the President is not likely to be assassinated, and if he is, it's less likely that the Vice President will be assassinated before he can appoint a new Vice President. However, having Nancy Pelosi run the House and control the agenda is a bit worrying.
ReplyDelete