It seems as if every month we have at least one news cycle dedicated entirely to singing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s praises, lauding her all the way as a fierce icon of style and politics.
You can practically set your watch to it.
Recommended Stories
We are seeing another round of Pelosi hero-worship this week from our firefighting news media following her announcement that she had asked the “chairman to proceed with the articles of impeachment” against President Trump.
“The president has engaged in abuse of power, undermining our national security and jeopardizing the integrity of our elections,” the speaker maintained during a news conference.
Members of the press wasted no time printing up stories marveling at her iron will and determination.
“Speaker Nancy Pelosi never wanted to impeach President Donald Trump,” reads a Politico report bearing three bylines. “But now that it’s happening, she’s doing it her own way — in 4-inch heels and with an iron grip.”
Hoo-boy.
It is not even four paragraphs before the Politico report quotes a Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Anna Eshoo of California, who lovingly says that Pelosi “has a very, very deep faith, and next to that deep faith is her rock-solid faith in the Constitution.”
Okay, that’s enough of that. Moving on!
Over at the New York Times, there is a stirring profile explaining Pelosi’s tough but heroic road to impeachment. The story includes a lot of the usual pablum one has come to expect from these pro-Democratic hagiographies, including details of Pelosi’s alleged shock and dismay that our core democracy is under attack and — you know the rest. The report’s opening paragraphs read:
But the news of Mr. Trump’s repeated entreaties for Ukraine to investigate a leading political rival was too much for Ms. Pelosi. The speaker’s mind was made up to embark on proceedings that could lead to the impeachment and removal of the 45th president of the United States.
[…]
The decision, delivered in a somber tone punctuated by unusual flashes of emotion … demonstrated how thoroughly Ms. Pelosi had transformed from impeachment skeptic to impeachment warrior.
Like Politico, the New York Times also gives space to glowing quotes from Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Adam Schiff of California, who claims Pelosi is “fond of quoting Thomas Paine, ‘The times have found us.’ But they have found no one more than her. She really was made for this hour, but I think she also recognized when that hour was right for the country to go down this road to impeachment.”
Ugh. That’s enough of that. Moving on.
At Pelosi’s impeachment press briefing, she also dressed down Sinclair reporter James Rosen after he asked her if she “hates” the president.
“As a Catholic, I resent your using the word hate in a sentence that addresses me,” said the speaker, who opposes efforts to outlaw abortion during the final four months of pregnancy (with exceptions for the life and health of the mother). “I don’t hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president. And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.”
Certain members of the press swooned.
“Don’t ‘mess’ with Nancy Pelosi,” read the headline to a particularly gushy Washington Post op-ed.
The New York Times published a straight-new report also titled, “‘Don’t Mess’ With Nancy Pelosi.” (The headline has since been adjusted.)
Later, during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Pelosi kept up the attack against Rosen.
“Was that a reporter?” she said sarcastically. “Was that what reporters do? Is [Sinclair] a news [organization]?”
CNN promoted her remarks later on social media with the headline: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi casts shade on a member of the media whose questions about hating Pres. Trump elicited a strong response from her this morning.”
I remember when it used to be considered a heinous affront to our core democracy for powerful politicians to accuse reporters of being “fake news.” I remember when it was called a dangerous attack on our very freedoms. Now, it is apparently just casting “shade.”
Isn’t it funny how things change depending on political affiliations?
