Nancy Pelosi reasons like a kindergartner

One thing I can’t stand about many politicians is when they are asked a question, instead of actually answering the question, they give a half-assed response in order to just get past the question. And if that response happens to slam their opposing political party in the process, bonus points.

One such politician is Nancy Pelosi (D-California), current Speaker of the House of Representatives. In the “10 Questions” feature of the August 11, 2008 issue of Time Magazine, she was asked “Why have you taken impeachment off the table as an option for President George W. Bush?”

She responded, “I took it off the table a long time ago. You can’t talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can’t have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda.”

So she actually gave two answers. First, she blames it on the administration for not providing the facts. Maybe she should have had the facts already before she talked about impeachment in the first place. Maybe it was wrong and immoral to suggest such an act without having all the information.

Second, she says it’s because the Republicans would like her to focus on the impeachment. What? That’s the lamest answer to a political question I’ve ever heard. A politician saying, “I’m not doing it because my opposing party wants me to do it.” That’s the kind of reasoning that our Speaker of the House is using? The five-year-old that lives next door to me could have come up with a reason like that. Shouldn’t we expect just a bit more from our speaker?

Great, you wouldn’t want to take the issue off the table because it shouldn’t be on the table. Instead, take it off the table because the Republicans want you to keep it on the table. I wonder if the fine folks in San Francisco are okay that their elected official reasons like she’s in kindergarten.

That was only one of the ten questions. Other responses are just as ridiculous. You can read the article for yourself.