Thursday Theory: The Speaker's Law

The field of Political Science, because it describes the actions of people, does not have a lot of "laws" in the traditional sense. For example, while the physical sciences have revolutionized the world with the discovery of the Law of Gravity, the political sciences have given us Duverger's Law.

Well, I would like to make a contribution to the political sciences, with the "Speaker's Law":

"A person cannot successfully be the Speaker, or will not long be the Speaker, of the United States House of Representatives unless they are overweight."

Let's look at the facts:

The first Speaker of the House was Pennsylvania Congressman Frederick Muhlenberg. Muhlenberg was a Lutheran pastor by profession, was a member of the Continental Congress in 1779 and 1780, and served as Speaker of the Pennsylvania State House in 1780. He served as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives during the 1st and 3rd Congresses, 1789-1791 and 1793-1795 respectively, as both Pro- and Anti-Administration. I have included his portrait to the left. He clearly has some extra pounds on him.

The Speaker of the House to serve the longest consecutive term, was Massachusetts Congressman Thomas "Tip" O'Neill. He served ten years from 1977 to 1987 in the Democrat controlled House. He worked to implement the policies of President Jimmy Carter, worked for Peace in Northern Ireland, and criticized President Ronald Reagan as being "Herbert Hoover with a smile." He also coined the phrase "All Politics are Local." His portrait is included to the right. Tip O'Neill had a reputation as being a "big" guy.

Texas Congressman Sam Rayburn is widely regarded as being the most successful Speaker of the House. He served a total of 17 years, in three terms between 1940 and 1961. He was instrumental in Lyndon B Johnson's rise to power and worked to construct Route 66. Additionally, he was famous for holding his "Board of Education" meetings, where he and committee chairmen would gather to play poker, drink bourbon, and discuss politics. Based on his pictures, he looks as if he may have been carrying a few extra pounds as well.

Another bulky Speaker of the House was Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich who engineered the Republican Revolution in the House in 1994 after 40 years of Democrat control. He defeated President Clinton's universal health care proposal, held spending in check, and balanced the federal budget. He served between 1994 and 1999. Newt Gingrich is also reputed to have been overweight.

His successor, Illinois Congressman Dennis Hastert was also rather large. Hastert served between 1999 and 2007, presiding over the War on Terror and working with President Bush to advance the Republican Agenda. Dennis Hastert is the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House.

Now, let's look at some of the thinner Speakers of the House.

The Speaker of the House to serve the shortest term was New York Representative Theodore Medad Pomeroy. He served from March 3rd, 1869, upon the resignation of Speaker Schuyler Colfax, until the expiration of his term on March 4th, 1869. This made him Speaker of the House for just 1 day. Even though his party (the Republicans) remained in power for the new Congress, Pomeroy had not won re-election. His picture is shown to the left, and he appears to be in pretty good shape.

Tennessee Congressman John Bell was Speaker of the House from June 1834 to March 1835. Bell had been defeated for the Speakership numerous times before by his rival James K. Polk. Bell also lost a bid for President to Abraham Lincoln in a four way race. During his career, Bell witnessed the collapse of his party (the Whigs) and the secession of his state from the Union. According to Wikipedia, "Bell reluctantly accepted Tennessee's subsequent secession and retired from politics, his spirit broken and in ill health." Bell's picture is given to the right. He appears skinny to me, judging by his face and legs.

More recently was the term of Washington Congressman Tom Foley. He served as Speaker of the House from 1989 to 1995. He took over the position after Speaker Jim Wright stepped down over an ethics scandal. During his tenure, the House Banking Scandal and House Post Office Scandal were brought to light, which ultimately contributed to the Republican Revolution in 1994. As a result of Speaker Foley's poor leadership and opposition to the efforts of his state to impose term limits, he lost reelection in 1994. Speaker Foley is the first sitting Speaker of the House to lose reelection. His picture is featured to the right. As you can see, he is a very thin guy.

Clearly, those Speakers of the House that were overweight were more successful than those that were thin.

Now, let's consider the current Speaker of the House, California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. During her "First Hundred Hours," the Democrat-controlled House achieved none of the objectives it had outlined for that period. She failed to disclose her position as a member of a family charity. She violated U.S. Law by visiting Syria, misrepresented the Israeli Prime Minister, and then refused to meet with President Bush to brief him on what happened during her visit to the Middle East. Her statements continue to demonstrate her overall ignorance and arrogance, and are even treasonous at times. I seriously question how long she will be able to remain Speaker with this kind of behavior, since she is not improving the Democrats' chances of future electoral success. And to top it all off, she is rather fit and trim.

So, Democrats, start sending Big Macs and cheesecake to Nancy Pelosi. She's got a lot of weight to gain if she wants to stay Speaker. As for me, I'm going to send her some Dexotrim and a membership to a DC health club.

Nancy Pelosi and Syria

Syria claims that it played a role in the release of the 15 British sailors being held hostage in Iran. Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal claimed:

"Syrian efforts and the Iranian willingness culminated with the release of the British sailors."

So, did Nancy Pelosi resolve the Iran/Britain dispute by talking with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad? If she did, she deserves to be scorned all the more.

It is not enough that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has to embarrass and undermine the United States while at home. Now she has to do it abroad as well. Let's look at the message she has sent:

• President Bush does not determine foreign policy (as he is charged to by the Constitution). Instead, the Democrat opposition in the House will act in his stead, as co-president.
  

• Members of the United States government are willing to deal with a state sponsor of Terrorism, as listed by the U.S. State Department, as they would with any other nation.
  

• That the third in line to the Presidency and the first woman to be Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, indicated her willingness to surrender to Islamic rule by covering her head (and don't think that's not how many Muslims see it!).

And most importantly:

• That there is no benefit to being an ally (or citizen) of the United States, since members of the government will do little more than talk when their soldiers are kidnapped and tortured by foreign powers. By doing this, Nancy Pelosi and all those who follow her have abdicated the primary responsibility of government: to protect its citizenry.
  

I believe that Nancy Pelosi should be impeached and tried for treason as a result of her trip to Syria. She went beyond the duties of her office, and assumed powers reserved for the president and those appointed by him. She met with enemies of the United States, and who knows what she promised them while in private. And if you do not think Nancy Pelosi is a traitor, then just ask yourself: how would her actions be any different if she was?

Cheney Statement Hits Home with Pelosi

I had to laugh.

While in Japan paying respects to Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko for their support in the War on Terror, Vice President Dick Cheney made the following remark regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha during an interview with ABC News:

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

Right on. Al-Qaeda does not have the military capabilities to conquer and occupy the United States. Their activities are limited to terrorist attacks on military and civilians targets. In this case, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups can only win by forfeit; if we "throw in the towel" as the Vice President says. The "slow bleed" policy advanced by Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha would take steps in just that direction.

"Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself."

Instead of going after the terrorists and insurgents in full force, the House Democrats are proposing that we pussyfoot around and fight a war with one arm tied behind our backs. As Michelle Malkin put it on her blog, "One Word: Disgusting." If we're in this, let's win it! Let's go in there and kick some butt! It will make the time we have to spend in Iraq shorter because we will have more quickly removed the terrorists' capabilities.

In any case, what was Speaker Pelosi's response to Dick Cheney's comments?

"And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said.

...I'm telling!


Methinks the lady doth protest too much... Madam Speaker, instead of shutting down the Vice President, perhaps you could explain to me what about his comments went over the line? What about your actions contradicts his statement? Perhaps you would be more credible in calling the Vice President's comments out of line if you stopped advocating policies that usurp the constitutional powers of the Commander-in-Chief, stopped working to weaken the U.S. military during war and got out of the way of victory.

Pelosi Has Memory Block

Madam Speaker... please, stop speaking.

According to a CNN story, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) was quoted as saying the following:

"I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

Think back Ms. Pelosi. Think back hard... Think back to September 14, 2001, to the Authorization for Use of Military Force that passed almost unanimously through the Congress. The authorization that YOU voted for:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

All "necessary and appropriate force" against those that "he determines" were responsible for or "aided" the terrorist attacks of September 11. Now, that seems pretty clear to me. What part are you confused about Ms. Pelosi? The part where Iran has been harboring terrorists and funding their organizations for decades, or the part where their continued weapons program and anti-Americanism threatens to blow up another 3,000 citizens (or more)? In fact it seems to me that it doesn't matter what you or Congress think, Ms. Pelosi, because this resolution gives the President carte blanche to declare war on whomever he wants.

Maybe that's why Representative Walter B Jones Jr. (R-NC), a Republican I am sad to say, has proposed a resolution essentially saying that the Authorization for Use of Military Force does not apply to Iran, and that the President must receive specific authorization from Congress before any military force can be used. Fortunatly Rep. Jones' resolution is stalled in committee. Now why would this resolution be even necessary at all unless there WAS previous authority for the President to go to war with Iran?

Once upon a time the House of Representatives and Senate (under Democrat control, lets give them a little credit) did pass resolutions SUPPORTING our war against Islamo-Fascism. Even if it was because they had to politically, they did gave President Bush the authority and support he needed to find, stop and destroy terrorists. Now they have put politics above patriotism in an almost treasonous fashion, drafting excuses, roadblocks and hurtles for the President. The Liberals need to stop making victory over terrorism a partisan issue. Try supporting the swift and certain defeat of our enemies Ms. Pelosi. It would be a refreshing change.

In a related historical note, Abraham Lincoln imprisoned several members of the Maryland legislature as traitors in order to prevent the state from voting for succession. He even arrested and deported a pro-Confederate congressman named Clement Vallandigham (D-Ohio). It makes me wonder what Lincoln would do to the current members of Vallandigham's party if he were around today.