Red Nancy’s Projection Game
So the other day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos as reported here in The Washington Examiner:
“ ‘As I have said, in terms of this president, all roads lead to Putin,’ Pelosi said. ‘Sometimes I wonder about Mitch McConnell too. What’s he — why is he an accomplice to all of that?’”
The Examiner went on to say – correctly:
“The accusation that Trump worked with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election is not only tired; it’s false. The Mueller report proved as much, yet Pelosi still insists on pushing a debunked narrative. And now she’s trying to tie McConnell to it, too.”
Indeed. But it is clearly necessary to recall for those who came in late that one of Pelosi’s routines is to accuse others of what she herself does. Case in point?
Recall that back in 2006, Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley was revealed to have been targeting young male House pages for sex. As discussed here at the time, he had been texting his targets. The texts were revealed, an uproar ensued, and Foley resigned.
This occurred as the 2006 congressional elections were coming down the stretch, and then-House Minority Leader Pelosi grabbed on to the issue instantly. Among other things she said this:
“Republican leaders admitted to knowing about Mr. Foley’s abhorrent behavior for six months to a year and failed to protect the children in their trust. Republican leaders must be investigated by the Ethics Committee and immediately questioned under oath.”
As I noted at the time, catch that phrase of hers…that Republican leaders “failed to protect the children in their trust.” I wrote:
“For failing to protect those children, Pelosi wanted a Congressional investigation, with members of Congress to be ‘immediately questioned under oath.’”
But there was something curious going on here. So I looked into it. And what did I find? This – bold print supplied.
“It seems that back in 2001, Pelosi was a happy participant in the San Francisco Gay Pride parade. As noted here, with a large gay community in her hometown there was nothing unusual about this. What was unusual was that the Grand Marshal of the parade was one Harry Hay, the (now-deceased) advocate of ‘man-boy love.’ At his death, he was remembered fondly by the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) for saying things like this at a forum at New York University in 1983:
‘Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.’”
In other words? In other words, there was the self-righteous Ms. Pelosi going after House GOP Leaders for letting Foley slide, for “failing to protect the children” and demanding they be “immediately questioned under oath.”
All of this while knowing Pelosi herself had been a willing participant in a parade whose Grand Marshal was a man who, in the day, was famously known for advocating exactly the behavior Pelosi was suddenly condemning – with Pelosi herself giving Harry Hay her seal of approval by participating in a parade that honored him.
Come back to today’s world and the question is simple. Is Pelosi accusing both President Trump and Senator McConnell of behavior which in fact she has personally exhibited herself?
Look no further than this story in The Washington Examiner, published back in 2007, shortly after Pelosi had become Speaker of the House as a result of those 2006 elections. It was written by Joshua Muravchik, “a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.”
Mr. Muravchik tells the tale of Pelosi’s relationship with – and devoted admiration for – one Harry Bridges. And who was Harry Bridges? Muravchik focuses on “the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union (ILWU), which controlled the docks of San Francisco.” The ILWU had been expelled by the anti-Communist AFL-CIO precisely because it was run by Communists. Its president was – Harry Bridges. Bridges, who died in 1990, was described this way by Muravchik:
“The force behind the ILWU’s ideology was Harry Bridges, an Australian immigrant, and devoted Communist. The Roosevelt and Truman administrations tried to deport Bridges, on the grounds that he had lied about his Communist affiliation in his immigration papers, but for various procedural reasons, the case was dismissed. So loyal was Bridges to Moscow that during the period of the Stalin-Hitler pact, he opposed the (1940) reelection of labor hero FDR because Roosevelt was aligning the United States with Britain against Germany, and the ILWU printed antiwar pamphlets proclaiming ‘The Yanks Are NOT Coming.’ As soon as Hitler’s forces invaded the Soviet Union, Bridges did a 180-degree about-face on the war.
…the influence of Harry Bridges and his ILWU was what pulled the Bay Area Democratic Party so far to the left.”
After carefully laying out the history of Bridges as a staunch Stalinist, Muravchik says this:
“The point of rehearsing all of this ancient history is that one of those he influenced and who still goes out of her way to honor that influence is Nancy Pelosi. In 2001, she took to the pages of the Congressional Record to effuse her sentiments on the hundredth anniversary of Harry Bridges’s birth, an occasion celebrated only by a gnostic few.
Here is what she said: ‘Harry Bridges [was] arguably the most significant labor leader of the twentieth century,’ who was ‘beloved by the workers of this Nation, and recognized as one of the most important labor leaders in the world.’ She added: ‘The International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union [was] the most progressive union of the time.’ In other words, this Communist-run union was more admirable than all of the anti-Communist unions.
Pelosi delivered this encomium a full nine years after Bridges’s membership in the CP Central Committee had been revealed. Nor was this just a single moment. As recently as this February she visited ILWU headquarters to deliver this homage: ‘It is very special to me, any occasion that I can come to the ILWU hall and acknowledge the leadership of this great union. . . .’
This was not just an infatuation with one man. In addition to her tribute to Bridges, she delivered a similar encomium to another prominent Bay Area Stalin fan, Vivian Hallinan, whose husband was Bridges’s lawyer and the 1952 candidate for president of the Communist-front Progressive party. ‘Vivian,’ she enthused, ‘was devoted intellectually and passionately to many causes, well before they became popularly embraced.’”
Got that? Pelosi was so enamored of Stalinists she could easily be called “Red Nancy.”
So. What do we see here? What we see is how Nancy Pelosi works. She will go after Republican House Leaders in 2006 for “failing to protect the children” and demanding they be “immediately questioned under oath” because they failed to protect underage male House pages from a Member’s advances. While at the same time she was paying homage to a man infamous in the day for advocating “man-boy” love – precisely what she accused the GOP leadership of protecting.
Now? Now she is accusing both the President and Senator McConnell of being “an accomplice” of the Russians – when in reality it is Pelosi herself who was a staunch admirer of Harry Bridges, a literally pro-Stalinist labor leader who was so dangerous that FDR and Harry Truman, Democrats both, had tried to get him deported for he had “lied about his Communist affiliation in his immigration papers” – a case lost only for procedural reasons.
In short? Whether it was NAMBLA’s Harry Hay or the Communist’s Harry Bridges, Nancy Pelosi’s game was to point the finger at Republicans – to project on to them what in fact she was doing.
Call it Red Nancy’s Projection Game.
This time it isn’t working.