Nancy Pelosi: Elected women are more ethical than elected men

Ben-Peter Terpstra
The notion of a morally superior, ecologically progressive Nancy Pelosi is prevalent among liberal feminists. Women are always more nurturing and sharing, they say. They are better than those nasty boys.

Here's the dirt on Rep. Pelosi's self-praising speech in 1990 (Ukiah Daily Journal, March 12):  

In a festive atmosphere with balloons declaring, "Write women back into history," the women shared music, food and the reflections of several speakers. Rep. Pelosi in her talk foresaw that women will play a major role in achieving world peace and preserving the environment when their numbers are fully represented in the political process.

Now Pelosi threw Hillary Clinton under the bus last year, and that's a real shame. Why? Here's why:

Pelosi named four areas of public policy where women's political influence is crucial in bringing about change: the national budget; women's reproductive choices; education and health aid to Third World women; and the environment.

Women have a wholesome effect on morals in the political arena, Rep. Pelosi believes. In the

Congresswoman's opinion, women elected officials have a higher standard of ethical behavior, so as more women are elected to office they will change the nature of politics. She foresees that as more women are elected, the American people will again be proud [!]of their leaders and in turn will want to run for public positions.

Just look at Soup Line Sweden. That is why Pelosi backed Obama and the unions. And why -- my guess -- she speaks out against the "evils" of waterboarding after the fact (to secure California).

In 2005's Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy Peter Schweizer matter-of-factly notes (p. 148):

...Congresswoman Pelosi and her husband own a vineyard in the Napa Valley, on Zinfadel Lane in St. Helena, worth $25 million. (They recently sold another eight-acre vineyard on Skellenger Lane.) This is prime grape-growing soil, and the Pelosis make good money from their harvest, between $200,000 and $2 million a year according to financial disclosures.

The Pelosis don't pick the grapes themselves; they hire outside firms to handle it. In recent years they have used several different harvesters, but they all have something in common: None have contracts with the UFW. The Pelosis sell their grapes to the non-union wineries Liparita Cellars and Roche. (Some of these wines made with Pelosi cabernet sauvignon grapes sell for more than $100 a bottle in restaurants.) In recent years the Pelosis have also held stakes in two other wine enterprises - Ravenswood Winery and the Charlore Wine Group (a consortium of small growers). Neither of these makes the UFW list as a "union-label" company.

I sincerely hope those grapes are certified organic and picked by legal workers.
The notion of a morally superior, ecologically progressive Nancy Pelosi is prevalent among liberal feminists. Women are always more nurturing and sharing, they say. They are better than those nasty boys.

Here's the dirt on Rep. Pelosi's self-praising speech in 1990 (Ukiah Daily Journal, March 12):  

In a festive atmosphere with balloons declaring, "Write women back into history," the women shared music, food and the reflections of several speakers. Rep. Pelosi in her talk foresaw that women will play a major role in achieving world peace and preserving the environment when their numbers are fully represented in the political process.

Now Pelosi threw Hillary Clinton under the bus last year, and that's a real shame. Why? Here's why:

Pelosi named four areas of public policy where women's political influence is crucial in bringing about change: the national budget; women's reproductive choices; education and health aid to Third World women; and the environment.

Women have a wholesome effect on morals in the political arena, Rep. Pelosi believes. In the

Congresswoman's opinion, women elected officials have a higher standard of ethical behavior, so as more women are elected to office they will change the nature of politics. She foresees that as more women are elected, the American people will again be proud [!]of their leaders and in turn will want to run for public positions.

Just look at Soup Line Sweden. That is why Pelosi backed Obama and the unions. And why -- my guess -- she speaks out against the "evils" of waterboarding after the fact (to secure California).

In 2005's Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy Peter Schweizer matter-of-factly notes (p. 148):

...Congresswoman Pelosi and her husband own a vineyard in the Napa Valley, on Zinfadel Lane in St. Helena, worth $25 million. (They recently sold another eight-acre vineyard on Skellenger Lane.) This is prime grape-growing soil, and the Pelosis make good money from their harvest, between $200,000 and $2 million a year according to financial disclosures.

The Pelosis don't pick the grapes themselves; they hire outside firms to handle it. In recent years they have used several different harvesters, but they all have something in common: None have contracts with the UFW. The Pelosis sell their grapes to the non-union wineries Liparita Cellars and Roche. (Some of these wines made with Pelosi cabernet sauvignon grapes sell for more than $100 a bottle in restaurants.) In recent years the Pelosis have also held stakes in two other wine enterprises - Ravenswood Winery and the Charlore Wine Group (a consortium of small growers). Neither of these makes the UFW list as a "union-label" company.

I sincerely hope those grapes are certified organic and picked by legal workers.